Tag Archives: abraham lincoln

President Obama recites Abraham’s Lincoln’s anti-Christian screed

This will surely be the last straw.

Ken Burns only asked the president to recite the Gettysburg Address so that it could be recorded for an anniversary project. But while reading the text to the camera, what did he do? He edited out “under God.” Might as well improve the damn thing while you’ve got a chance, right? It’s not every day you get the opportunity to insinuate your pal Satan into the minds of millions of unsuspecting Americans.

WASHINGTON — One nation under God? Under President Obama, maybe not so much . . the Commander-in-Chief joined a cast of 61 other noted lawmakers, politicians, news anchors and celebrities, including every living President, in reciting the Gettysburg Address, which President Abraham Lincoln delivered on November 19, 1863.

The dignitaries all delivered the address as Lincoln had written it, including the phrase, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom” . . Curiously, however, in his version of the address, President Obama omitted the words “under God.”

Breitbart.com was properly alerted to this flawless act of jeebus-stomping communism.

Washington DC talk show host Chris Plante reported today that Barack Obama omitted the words “under God” from the Gettysburg Address when reciting the great speech for a Ken Burns documentary . .

Plante broke the story on Washington DC talk radio station WMAL on his mid-morning program, “The Chris Plante Show.”

To say the readers there went out of their minds would be an understatement. More than six-thousand comments so far:

tru…. Satan is cumin back 6666… g0d help us plz….. Obammer === Nazi Muzzler atheist agnostic christian Facist commie socialist Libtard…. We are all ded… thx obammer….

But. It isn’t quite as it appears. The real reason God will soon barbecue us all like hairy hamburgers traces back, past this president, to the speech’s author, Abraham Lincoln. He gave the very first written version of the address to one of his secretaries, John Nicolay. In it, there was no “under God.” The second version, too, omitted the phrase that today prevents us from collapsing into Luciferian madness and perversion. Three subsequent versions written after the address did include the two words. But Burns – who’s also a historian, oddly – asked the president to read the original version. Lincoln is believed to have inserted the nod to Him at Gettysburg, but no one’s really sure because it was a long time ago. Before the Sony Walkman PRO.

ADD: Even the Weekly Standard.

Somebody give John McCormack a raise. Or a drink.

Whether intentional or not, President Obama’s omission of these words from the most important speech in American history is quite embarrassing. Can you imagine the ridicule that President Bush would have rightfully faced if he added the words “under God” to a famous historical text (say, the preamble of the Constitution) in which they weren’t included?

I mean golly – say what? It was Ken Burns? McCormack’s post has since been deleted.

ADD Number Two: Even the National Review.

The NR did eventually get hip to the sinning of Burns/Lincoln but they didn’t delete the post, Weekly-Standard style. They merely updated it. Which leaves us to contemplate these comments, for all time presumably:

americanlatina11 • 4 hours ago

Democrats–God-phobic rats.

Michael Ryan • 4 hours ago

so why do we care, Lincoln destroyed the constitution to ruin the country with free roaming africans As for the blood ransom of the lash, every year blacks shed more white blood than slaveowners did in 500 years. Not that what slaveowners did has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with America or living American Whites

John – Atlanta • 3 hours ago

White southern slave owners were the founders of the Progressive party and latter in the early 1900s enabled Sanger’s abortion scheme to kill “empty eaters” aka blacks and mongoloids (Mexicans).

Obama choose to use the version Lincoln did not use, because he was not going to say the word God, just like in the three debates with Romney he did not use the words God, Creator, and Jesus.

The new birth of freedom will be under Satan, the stenographer delivered that message from the House floor directly from God.

And what better way to honor the Great Emancipator’s legacy?


Rich Lowry vs. the Great Emancibaggers

You pick this week’s National Review from off the top of the mail pile (oh goody) and you look at the cover. In bold white print it says “Lincoln Defended.” So you squint and look a little closer, and that’s when it smacks you. “Abraham Lincoln?”

Yes, Abraham Lincoln. 130 years post-Reconstruction the thug house that is America’s political right-wing still teems so disturbingly with bug-eyed Lincoln bullies that the tower of bi-monthly conservative discourse is trying to talk sense to them.

It won’t work, of course. These patriots consider it a mark of Flawless Character to be happy that Lincoln was assassinated. After all he suspended habeas corpus! He waged war on values America! He stole their living breathing property!!1! The list of grievances is so extensive that it’s impossible to corral all the victimized politics-groups:

. . A few founding figures of this magazine were firmly in the anti-Lincoln camp. Libertarianism is rife with critics of Lincoln, among them Ron Paul and the denizens of the fever-swamp at LewRockwell.com. The Loyola University Maryland professor Thomas DiLorenzo has made a cottage industry of publishing unhinged Lincoln-hating polemics. The list of detractors includes left-over agrarians, southern romantics, and a species of libertarians — “people-owning libertarians,” as one of my colleagues archly calls them — who apparently hate federal power more than they abhor slavery. They are all united in their conviction that both in resisting secession and in the way he did it, Lincoln took American history on one of its great Wrong Turns.

The conservatives who happen to despise Abraham Lincoln on personal, political and/or philosophical grounds are then known to be, but not limited to, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, their readers, subscribers and followers, true Libertarians, self-appointed intellectuals, university academics, internet kooks, farmers, redmecks, racists, Southerners, supremacists, Confederates, dinosaurs, debutantes, Rich Lowry’s friends and the founders of the National Review. In other words, one-third the GOP.

All of this, mind you, is only possible because of the disastrous flaw of the organic conservative brain. The poor overheated organ has no capacity for appreciating reality. It is instead obsessed with a far inferior thing: Philosophy. That’s why Lowry’s arguments in support of Lincoln, to counter specifically those against, are entirely taken with esoterics:

As I argue in my new book, Lincoln Unbound, Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the foremost proponent of opportunity in all of American history . .

. . whereas the rest of us are satisfied with ‘He Saved the United States.’ Misguided souls. Let us call them ‘The Great Emancibaggers.’ Then let us speak no more of this crap.


When even Abe Lincoln falls short

We Are The World, social conservative edition. The National Review makes a clumsy attempt to convince the bubble blowers that Hollywood is still terribly insulting of them, Real America®.

You wonder how one goes about such a thing? The same way a wingnut argues that Blue States are painfully out of touch with the country. Example: ‘Liberals wanted to make us all gay but they barely got two percent. Ha!’ Like that. Ninety-eight percent of America is exactly like the Red States: No-homo. See? Tidy.

How about attacking Spielberg’s Lincoln? I’d say that’s a bad strategy. The protagonist is well-liked and a Republican after all. Plus he freed the slaves which is currently a hip credential, even in parts of Alabama. But then there’s Steven Spielberg to consider . .

. . one would have to imagine the reaction had the gay community learned that Milk, the biopic about one of the most beloved members of its community, was going to be directed by Clint Eastwood, star Mel Gibson, be based on a book by David Barton, with a screenplay written by Dinesh D’Souza.

Golly. Eastwood the curmudgeon, Gibson the drunk, Barton the fantasist and D’Souza the imbecile. In the hands of those four, Lincoln’s battle with Congress would end up Goonies vs. Superfly. Which, naturally, I’d like to see.

“Sadly, the movie also contains about 40 obscenities and profanities, including four ‘f’ words and more than 10 GDs,” noted MovieGuide, a site that a good number of traditionalists consult before attending movies.

Hollywood could use some movie magic when it comes to its docudramas. Did the Titanic really have to sink? Couldn’t Ray have had a bionic eye? Imagination, people.

Declining to give Lincoln its much-sought-after seal of approval, the influential Dove Foundation also questioned the veracity of the cursing, noting that “the language they feature in the film (and this includes Lincoln cursing as well) does not line up with the morals and language of the time period.”

When the Dear Abbys at the . . uh let’s see . . right the Dove Foundation pinch their noses at you, you’re in for it. This probably means Spielberg’s an Oscar shoo-in for everything, Best Underpants included. The Coodle-oo Institute might want to reconsider the argument that our slave era was a more moral time than today. Really.

. . they surely cost Lincoln some amount of foot traffic, if a 48-year-old named Leigh who posted her concerns at Christian Answers is any indication:

“I refuse to pay for and go to a movie where God’s name is taken in vain. There are numerous Web sites out there which will tell you positive and negative aspects of a movie, so that you don’t unknowingly subject yourself or your family to movie content that all Christians should refuse to be a part of.”

He saved a nation, he freed millions of people, and these are of some little good. BUT HE SAID DAMN. Which is like watching Christ take a scud to the groin. No wonder they shot Abe’s melon. Hark! It’s Tim Allen in Santa Claws: Unleashed . .

The 79 percent of Americans who, according to Gallup, make up the center-right majority of the nation are showing their displeasure with Lincoln by voting with their feet and asking important questions: Why would moviegoers shell out money to see a picture that seems to intentionally offend their core values?

The Greatest American Who Ever Lived is an insult to these fusspots. Credits please.


First, we kill many of you. Then, things gets better.

“How would Lincoln vote in the 2012 election?” The right Reverend Michael Bresciani blogs this at Renew America. It is something he’d like to know. Not really, oh gee, the title’s a ruse. Michael already knows all about the Gentle Man with the Terrycloth Hands from the days when Folks Sat Around Playing Solitaire In Chains.

Any normal school student could research and find the heart of the Lincoln administration and of Lincoln himself, in very short time . . Only a cursory comparison of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama would force any discerning mind to a singular conclusion. One President was the great unifier and the other is the great divider.

I am no expert on Abraham Lincoln. I am hesitant to criticize. But there’s just, well, something about Michael’s argument. Something out of kilter. What is it?

Barack Obama has managed to set brother against brother, women against men and the rich against the poor.

Not sure what it is. Maybe you guys can see it. The devil if I can figure it out.

He has, with the help of the democratically controlled senate and Harry Reid managed to pit the senate against the congress. He has strangled bi-partisan political cooperation to the point of death.

…strange-looking president. Perfect opposition. Howls of victimization. Hysterical rage…

Creating warfare among citizen groups, sectors and individuals has been the hallmark of Barack Obama’s administration. This is hard to understand in view of the fact Obama has stated both that he would like to be a president like Lincoln . .

NOPE. There it goes, lost it. Damn. It was, like, right there and then it was *poof*.


Why I voted for Sarah Palin today

Once again, it’s Sarah Palin. Who is this person? Why does she act this way? Because she wants to lead this nation? Really? Don’t we give that job to smart people? Sarah’s hubris and The ‘Tale of Two Americas’ continue. It’s their “Isn’t she terrific?” vs. our “Keep dancing, you little monkeys!”

Michael Bresciani says Sarah Palin should be President of the United States, hooray! Okay. Let’s glean how the victory happened. Let’s find out why morons can run the tables on the American electorate. Let’s trace back the roots of our second Civil War:

7 reasons America needs Sarah Palin in 2012
By Michael Bresciani | Renew America | January 29, 2011

With this in mind we can start a general perusal of why Sarah Palin is the best possible candidate to become President of these United States in 2012.

1. The simplest howbeit most important reason Sarah Palin is the best choice for President in 2012 is because she is not Barack Obama.

So there’s only one person who isn’t “the best choice for President in 2012”? I wish I could be this funny.

3. Although it could easily be misconstrued on the most fundamental level Sarah will make a good candidate on her appearance. She is a lovely person that for many typifies the classic beauty of the American Woman. In a world where appearance counts for much she has it all. She is beautiful, well poised and dignified at all times.

Here she is, Lady Classic. Poised and dignified:

And spunky! She’s the entire package, if it’s a package full of cheap Barbie knock-offs that skree like crows. Don’t throw it in the trash, it’ll drive the rats back under your house.

5. Sarah Palin is well endowed with what we know as character and integrity. It is that stuff that Americans used to be satisfied with in our leaders even if they weren’t the sharpest tool in the shed. The most beloved President in our history, Abraham Lincoln had almost no education at all but no one has yet come near to the amazing Presidency, life and legacy he left to posterity.

Dance, Michael! C’mon, was Abe really all that smart? This is fun. Dumb Abraham Lincoln vs. Smart Sarah Barracuda, this will be an even match. If, by ‘even,’ you mean *SPLA-GROOOH*, or whatever noise a tank makes when it rolls over a soggy raisin.

Stupid Great Emancipator:

Brilliant With Bodacious Ta’s:

Only one whole sentence from Sarah? Is that fair? Yes, also.

We have heard the pompous declare that Sarah may not be intelligent enough to hold up the Presidency to a high standard. The best answer to that is Barack Obama. Here we have a superbly educated man that has led the nation to the brink of bankruptcy, the highest jobless rate and earned the title of being the head of the most corrupt administration in U.S. History. So much for intelligence!

Yay stupid people! That Barack guy’s pretty smart, but now’s the ever “highest jobless rate,” and he got titled in American History! The subject! Whaddya mean The Plague wasn’t his fault? Sa-RAH! OW! Sa-RAH! Sa-RAH!

Anyone with a nickels worth of intelligence knows that our Presidents don’t run the office alone. The cabinet and staff are a major part of any single President’s success. Palin can be trusted to surround herself with the very best and that is the best we can hope for. In case you’re one of the few who have not read Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” let me reiterate one of the most important examples in that great book.

Yes, dancing! Dance away!

When Henry Ford, the founder of the Ford Motor Company was dragged before the courts to relieve him of his position as CEO over one of the nation’s biggest corporations it was his lack of education or intelligence that was the primary charge leveled against him. When Ford was asked dozens of questions in common math problems, science, history and literature he could answer almost none of them. Then he asked the question to the court of why he should have to know those things when he had a desk full of buttons that could summon experts in every field; the case was instantly thrown out of court.

I can’t believe I’m about to google this. I guess I’ll type “that time that Henry Ford had to go to court and prove he wasn’t dumb as a slug of spider eggs” . . *clackety* Says here Ford suffered a series of strokes in the late 30’s that rendered him senile. So, no, the pioneer of modern factory mechanization wasn’t as dumb as Palin. But someone is. Gootchey goo!

I along with millions of American would be willing to bet our last dollar that Sarah Palin will be surrounded with the cream of the crop, the best of the best and when she needs to grasp a situation, will be advised by the tops in any field of polity and policy; that’s intelligence.

She probably has smart friends! If she lapses into a coma, we could take over the world! That’s it, I’m done.


Dear Republicans: please do not attempt to “improve” the discourse with utter bullsh*t

What a horrible tragedy. So many shattered lives, so much pain.

Now that we’ve seen what a mentally ill man with delusions about government victimization can do, wouldn’t it be a good idea to improve the tone of our political rhetoric?

Let’s not claim the President wants to burn us: “President Obama — why don’t you just set us on fire?” Let’s not say the government aims to smash us: “Our government wants to stir the pot so they can use the iron fist and crush people.” Let’s not pretend to kill the Speaker of the House: “You gonna drink your wine? I want you to drink it now. Drink it. By the way, I put poison in your . . “

. . and that’s only a couple months of one guy, Glenn Beck. And when we point out that Sarah Palin has been using “bullet politics” to score cheap points, don’t spit in our stupid faces:

[REBECCA] MANSOUR: I just want to clarify again, and maybe it wasn’t done on the record enough by us when this came out, the graphic, is just, it’s basically — we never, ever, ever intended it to be gunsights. It was simply crosshairs like you see on maps.

[TAMMY] BRUCE: Well, it’s a surveyor’s symbol. It’s a surveyor’s symbol.

MANSOUR: It’s a surveyor’s symbol. I just want to say this, Tammy, if I can. This graphic was done, not even done in house — we had a political graphics professional who did this for us.

I remind Rebecca and Tammy:

And after a tragedy where a congresswoman is targeted and shot through the head, and six others are now dead, don’t tell everyone to shut up:

[LAMAR] ALEXANDER: Well, Candy, I think you’re responsible, by bringing this up, of doing the very thing you’re trying to condemn. You’re making and implying a direct connection between Sarah Palin and what happened. You’re picking out a particular incident. Well, I think the way to get away from it is for you not to be talking about it.

This country has a long history of horrible, brutal political killings. Abraham Lincoln, shot in the head. John F. Kennedy, shot in the head. Robert Kennedy, shot in the head. Martin Luther King jr., shot in the head. How anyone could’ve ignored or forgotten this, I don’t understand.

Well, it’s happened again. Sarah Palin is a reckless fool for having produced and pimped such a shallow political stunt. A classier person would have acknowledged it and apologized by now.

ADD: Glenn Reynolds, exhibit #1A in the trial of discursive disgrace:

The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel
GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS | Jan 10 2011 | Wall Street Journal

Shortly after November’s electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews’s TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday’s tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner’s killing spree might fill the bill.

Yes, we’ve all been praying for a spree killing. A mass murder, or maybe a politically motivated serial killer — we need something that we can work with to reconnect our president with the American people. Anything with a large body count and witnesses permanently scarred would be nice. I more politically than personally rejoice over all the blood and brain matter spilled.

Good use of “Blood Libel”, incidentally, where Jews were murdered in suspicious retaliation for killing children to make Passover bread. You’d be one of those Jews, right, Glenn? You picked a convenient time to stand in for the wounded Jewish congresswoman. The discourse continues to improve.

ADD 2: Meanwhile, on Sarah Palin’s Facebook page, they’ve got editors working overtime scrubbing any mention of her “hit map” from the comments section. However, a comment that said the death of nine year old Christina Green was “ok” was saved:

“It’s ok. Christina Taylor Green was probably going to end up a left wing bleeding heart liberal anyway. Hey, as ‘they’ say, what would you do if you had the chance to kill Hitler as a kid? Exactly.”

Read the post at Obama London.


The sad spawn of American History’s biggest losers celebrate secession

150 years later, these idiots still can’t grasp reality?

At Charleston’s Secession Ball, divided opinions on the spirit of S.C.
By Manuel Roig-Franzia | Washington Post | December 22, 2010

. . “We are very proud of who we are,” said Chip Limehouse, a South Carolina legislator who rented a historically accurate suit and vest for the formal ball celebrating the anniversary. “This is in our DNA.”

Great-great-great-granddad fought the Yankees, lost his plantation, was bathed in glory, the men and women at the ball like to say. They’re proud of their ancestors, they declare, and that’s why they paid $100 apiece to take part in an event touted as a “joyous night of music, dancing, food and drink.”

600,000 fatalities because we defended genocide. And now, a toast.

Someone in the audience yelled “You’re a liar” when Riley told the crowd that South Carolinians were motivated to secede, in part, by a desire to preserve slavery. Riley has invited President Obama to narrate portions of Abraham Lincoln’s greatest speeches in an observance of the firing on Fort Sumter; it’s unclear whether he will accept.

It’s similarly unclear whether he will participate in a re-enacted lynching. Or whether he will sign an executive order tearing the nation to bits, just for a few minutes. Or command the Army to burn Atlanta to the ground. Some commemorations should be historically accurate?

“Impeach,” one of the actors called out. Lincoln and the North were responsible for “vulgar tyranny,” the actors said. A narrator intoned that the 169 South Carolina men who voted unanimously to secede were “compelled by the same sublime courage” as the men who fought against Britain in the Revolutionary War the century before. Slavery was mentioned, but the main reasons for secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure.

Slavery had nothing to do with it: this madness is the South’s latest veneer of bullshit. Their ancestors couldn’t be homicidal because they were men of virtue, in mind and character. True, blue-blooded Americans, they were unmatched in uncounted ways, incapable of the imprisonment, torture and slaughter of thousands.

Slavery was really nothing more than background noise, like the hum of machines in a factory. Hummm-hummmm buzzzz-buzzzzz I CAN”T HEAR YOU. Nobody got wound up about this hocus-pocus in the face of abolition.

The rest of us, we snotty Americans with our hysteria, and our Historians, and our Black friends who tell us about their ancestors, don’t know anything about actual Southern society and its ways. We just invoke a ridiculous drama to satisfy our bleeding hearts.

And here’s the proof: after the Civil War, did you really see Southerners take any notice? Did you see them vilify or accost these former ‘slaves’? Form groups to oppose them? Run them out of their towns? Did anyone go out of their way to cause them harm?

Of course not. Slavery was invisible to the Southern gentleman. He would look at the laborers on his plantation, the people who provided him the vast majority of his wealth, and ask himself “What the hell are those people doing on my property?”

The Civil War was really about complicated Northern/Southern power politics. And I’m not going to go any further into it because you’re frankly too stupid to understand.

John B. Hines, a wealthy Texas oilman and cattle rancher, helped, too. He sent a $5,000 sponsorship for the affair because he loves the Old South: “They created a society far and above anything else on Earth.”

Far and above the abolitionists, surely.


More Tea Party Mark: pretending to be Black to mock the lazy, welfare mavens of the NAACP

Tea Party Express

“They make more money off of race than any slave trader ever. It’s time groups like the NAACP went to the trash heap of history where they belong with all the other vile racist groups that emerged in our history…”

“. . I am disinclined to take lectures on racial sensitivity from a group that insists on calling black people, ‘Colored.’”

tea party mark yet again

“Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.


Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew
NAACP Head Colored Person”


Arizona Mayor opposes faggoting the military

Prancing ballerinas in the Marine Corps! Tryin’ to talcum yer artillery? Perfume yer grenades? Dainty yer foxhole? NO! Can’t have ’em makin’ googly eyes at the Iranians, sending them XOXO kisses in the mail! We can’t tell them to rush into battle, have ’em whip off their uniforms and wag their wieners at the North Koreans!

Mocking! Sassing!? GIGGLING?! In THE ARMY? NO!

Can’t have ’em fixin’ their buddies hair! Wipin’ the greasepaint off their faces! Complainin’ about the heat! Can’t have ’em rolling onto their backs at the sound of gunfire, begging to be mounted! LA LA LA LA BAYONET ME!?


We came so close to Civil War

March 16, 2010

Without Firing a Shot?
by David Limbaugh

During the height of the Cold War, some feared the communists would take over the Uniteddavid limbaugh States without firing a shot. Could it be that nearly a half-century later, we’re on the verge of that becoming a reality? . .

The people now attempting to govern us with an iron fist are Marxist-leaning in terms of not only the policies they support but also the ruthless tactics they employ to enact those policies into law.

As long as it served Obama’s Machiavellian purposes to maintain a semblance of unity for his ambitious agenda, he donned his bipartisan cap. But as soon as he encountered intractable opposition from Republicans, God bless them, he began to show his true political colors . .

SO BIZARRE, his tossing off the “bipartisan cap” after running headlong into “intractable opposition from Republicans.”

Better Presidents, especially Republicans, never behave so unpredictably.

The Greatest Republican of them all, Abraham Lincoln, for instance, was the exact opposite. This is straight out of ‘D00d’s American Guide To Total History’:

South Carolina was like . . “Dude — you got elected?! Tssh, we’re outta here.”

And, so, Abraham was like . . “Aww, man, don’t go.”

And South Carolina was like . . “Ballz. We are gone.”

And, so, Abraham was like . . “C’mon, man, please stay.”

And South Carolina was like . . “Yeh, I don’t think so. It’s war.”

And, so, Abraham was like . . “Awww maan.”

And right there, hammer-struck with intractable opposition, he cleverly gave in, thankfully preserving a genocide The Negroes still call “slavery” the end.