DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Thank YOU Hogan and Pugh!
ReplyDeleteWhy are you thanking Hogan and Pugh? High crime and murder among the black community? Maybe it's the amount of children without a father figure? Wait I know it's that they sit around while our cities are looted and burned over the death of a drug dealer.
ReplyDeleteHogan for selling us out as a RINO.
DeleteWell bless her heart. As an attorney, I would think she would know to read the text of the law. The law allowed confederate widows to receive a pension. To do so, they recognized a confederate soldier as a vet for only the purposes of that law. That was the only way to provide a pension to those widows, in addition to the widows of other wars. You can read the text of the law on any website that houses the text of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.
ReplyDeletedemocrats don't care about veterans. they only care about thugs.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThugs! You are right.
12:04 Bless your heart. I guess you forgot to read this part
ReplyDelete((CONFEDERATE FORCES VETERANS
"SEC. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served
in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America
during the Civil W a r a monthly pension in the same amounts and
subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such
184 PUBLIC LAW 85-426-MAY 27, 1958 [72 S T A T .
person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service
m such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the
United States."
1:38 - that still doesn't define them as a vet which is what her post is about. Paying them anything doesn't equate them as a vet.
ReplyDeleteBS it's a admittion they are and they paid for it also....$$$$$
Delete" and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such
ReplyDelete184 PUBLIC LAW 85-426-MAY 27, 1958 [72 S T A T .
person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service
m such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the
United States."
What part of the above text confuses you the most? I copied and pasted it here for you twice. Its from the US code. You do know that reading is fundamental.