Not So Blind Item

Well …… Wade looking older up yonder too … dude looks at least 39 – 40 chile

No really??!! Listen as long as her legs swing open for him..he gone hit..MEANWHILE…

I just made some coffee so strong and black..err time i sip i start hummin a negro spiritual…

All I can do is just give my Cam look… But no shock here.

at all

Chile I can’t stomach Geneva azz

That sounds like the kind of coffee that will give you the runs.

Women kill me with this bs…you taking it out on the most innocent, unwilling (baby didn’t ask to be here) individual in the entire situation- THE BABY. But yet you keke’n all in the face of the person who made the break baby; you damn nut! Where does her logic come from??

Damn you! You just made me LOL in front of massa!!

If the baby momma wants to still fawk him, she can but as we can see he still ain’t gonna claim her. You haven’t won nothing but a nut fawking a man that ain’t claiming you.

but her athlete husband is still hooking up with the mother of the baby.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WHALE GOOD! *bams desk like a care*

….see…she knew this child was here. She married him anyway. SO how long does the kid have to be on the side lines before he can come around? That’s not at all fair to the kid. Since she still wanted him, she knew that’s what came with it. If she needed time to process, then stay away until you do. That baby does not deserve that.

You wanted to marry his cheating ass anyway, so why treat this baby like that?
^^^^^THIS! You had the opportunity to carry yo ass but you stayed for the ride. So you might as well throw yo luggage in the trunk with his and take that bumpy ass road trip to wherever ya’ll going, BABY IN TOW!

Guess Wade still like that “Break” sex…

She finna WIN (in her mind) with *drumroll* 2nd Baby #2

And Everybody loses here LOL

Not enough to breakup apparently.

Well

Has he ever posted a picture of this baby around the family? He has a working instagram/twitter account right?

I 100% agree

I thought about it this way too. Then I thought how do we know it’s her keeping the child at bay? Could be Dwayne. Could be the child’s mother. I know my friend didn’t want my god daughter in family pictures with her dad and his new wife. The new wife wanted her there, and my friend said quite absolutely not…..ijs

Absolutely!

Nakeya,
On yall show, are the two ladies pregnant by the guy?

Doesn’t have instagram or twitter… I know I’m uncool.

But see, whoever it is, it’s not fair to the child. Why not include him or allow him to be included?! All because you, the adult are in your feelings. It’s about the kid, not you.

That excuses her for being a bytch …. oh okay

just enough to go hit it….and then Go back home! So the chick he keep “breaking” for is setting herself up…

Off topic: They’re bringing back dancing donkeys, as Sandra says. I’ve never seen it.

Nope. Amina is no longer pregnant. I don’t know if she got an abortion or lost it, and I am still unsure with Tara. Hopefully not, but knowing this show, yup. smh.

I haven’t seen one. He’s posted his two sons and his nephew (I think he’s his legal guardian) but not the baby. They both need they ass whooped. People need to start taking responsibility for their actions. You posted up in the bedroom with her and made a baby, you might as well post him on IG with the rest of your churren…

WHALE, it’s been said that they aren’t legally married. Some women consider him to be a much right man.

Yep.

Tara posted a pic somewhere. She knocked

oh

I think it’s more of a keep my baby away from that bish scenario (baby momma voice). D Wade knows he messed up, so to spare his wife’s feelings, he brings baby to house when wife is away filming something. Gabrielle probably isn’t losing sleep over not seeing this child. Baby was conceived under messy circumstances, so it will take YEARS (if ever) for Gabrielle to finally come around & accept ole junior.

Where? Lord smh. Are they considered a two parent household, since the dad lives in both places?

No excuse. Think of the psychological damage she is causing this innocent child. When you marry a man, you except his baggage, break baby and all.

(continuing from downstairs before we were summoned up here for this :rollseyes: )

I’m on the NRA’s website We finna learn some more history BRB

I must have missed that ….. lawd

I don’t know. …

Ask Sway down below. Him downstairs

They pulling a Jose and Steebie. LMAO

Chile apparently that excuses the mess chile … I guess

Or….

Athlete forgets about his non legal B list actress wife, still smangs his baby mother.

Heard Amina aborted.

ROFLHAARRD!!!

There are benefits to being legally married.

They better get on board

The PSYCHOLOGICAL damage does not excuse things forever.

I need to go anywhay LOL!!

Say-rah

WAAADDEEEE in da watah!!! (blows on coffee0 WAAADE in da wata children…

Really! I can’t with her. I could see her being a quintessential wife of a doctor or lawyer but she’s half bird…what Gunz got coming outta that gun of his?

??

Going Up da yoooondah!!!

Who CARES? It’s none of Our daym Business. First of all the Baby Momma was INVISIBLE so the BABY is INVISIBLE. Why is this being an issue? So if the BABY was in PHOTOS that would mean WHAT????

The North Carolina Supreme Court also sought to repudiate the idea that
free blacks were protected by the North Carolina Constitution’s Bill of
Rights by pointing out that the Constitution excluded free blacks from
voting, and therefore free blacks were not citizens. Unlike a number of
other state constitutions with right to keep and bear arms provisions that
limited this right only to citizens,
[19]
Article 17 guaranteed this right to
the people — and try as hard as they might, it was difficult to argue
that a “free person of color,” in the words of the Court, was not one of
“the people.”

It is one of the great ironies that, in much the same way that the North
Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms in 1843 — then a
year later declared that free blacks were not included — the Georgia
Supreme Court did likewise before the 1840s were out. The Georgia Supreme
Court found in Nunn v. State (1846) that a statute prohibiting the sale
of concealable handguns, sword-canes, and daggers violated the Second
Amendment:

The right of the whole people, old and young, men,
women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear
arms of every description, and not such merely as are
used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed,
or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all of
this for the important end to be attained: the rearing
up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally
necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion
is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the
Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,
originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under
foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and
successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688,
conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and
finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna
Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin,
Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans,
plead eloquently for this interpretation!
[20]

Finally, after this paean to liberty — in a state where much of the
population remained enslaved, forbidden by law to possess arms of any sort
— the Court defined the valid limits of laws restricting the bearing of
arms:

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of
1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain
weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does
not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-
defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and
bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a
prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict
with the Constitution, and void…
[21]

“Citizen”? Within a single page, the Court had gone from “right of the
whole people, old and young, men, women and boys” to the much more
narrowly restrictive right of a “citizen.” The motivation for this sudden
narrowing of the right appeared two years later.

The decision Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah (1848) was not, principally,
a right to keep and bear arms case. In 1839, the city of Savannah,
Georgia, in an admitted effort “to prevent the increase of free persons of
color in our city,” had established a $100 per year tax on free blacks
moving into Savannah from other parts of Georgia. Samuel Cooper and
Hamilton Worsham, two “free persons of color,” were convicted of failing
to pay the tax, and were jailed.
[22]
On appeal, counsel for Cooper and
Worsham argued that the ordinance establishing the tax was deficient in a
number of technical areas; the assertion of most interest to us is, “In
Georgia, free persons of color have constitutional rights…” Cooper and
Worsham’s counsel argued that these rights included writ of habeas corpus,
right to own real estate, to be “subject to taxation,” “[t]hey may sue and
be sued,” and cited a number of precedents under Georgia law in defense of
their position.
[23]

Justice Warner delivered the Court’s opinion, most of which is
irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms, but one portion shows the
fundamental relationship between citizenship, arms, and elections, and why
gun control laws were an essential part of defining blacks as
“non-citizens”: “Free persons of color have never been recognized here as
citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the
legislature, or to hold any civil office.”
[24]
The Georgia Supreme Court did
agree that the ordinance jailing Cooper and Worsham for non-payment was
illegal, and ordered their release, but the comments of the Court made it
clear that their brave words in Nunn v. State (1846) about “the right of
the people,” really only meant white people.

While settled parts of the South were in great fear of armed blacks, on
the frontier, the concerns about Indian attack often forced relaxation of
these rules. The 1798 Kentucky Comprehensive Act allowed slaves and free
blacks on frontier plantations “to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and
weapons, offensive and defensive.” Unlike whites, however, a license was
required for free blacks or slaves to carry weapons.
[25]

The need for blacks to carry arms for self-defense included not only the
problem of Indian attack, and the normal criminal attacks that anyone
might worry about, but he additional hazard that free blacks were in
danger of being kidnapped and sold into slavery.
[26]
A number of states,
including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, passed laws
specifically to prohibit kidnapping of free blacks, out of concern that
the federal Fugitive Slave Laws would be used as cover for
re-enslavement.
[27]

The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun
control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required
blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie
knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete
history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun
laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth
Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate
the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire.
[28]
It does
appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally
before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the
South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced.
It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at roughly the same time,
in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language
was race-neutral.
[29]

The former states of the Confederacy, many of which had recognized the
right to carry arms openly before the Civil War, developed a very sudden
willingness to qualify that right. One especially absurd example, and one
that includes strong evidence of the racist intentions behind gun control
laws, is Texas.

In Cockrum v. State (1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that
there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was
protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas
Bill of Rights. The outer limit of the state’s authority (in this case,
attempting to discourage the carrying of Bowie knives), was that it could
provide an enhanced penalty for manslaughters committed with Bowie
knives.
[30]
Yet, by 1872, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any
right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or
federal constitutions — and made no attempt to explain or justify why the
Cockrum decision was no longer valid.
[31]

What caused the dramatic change? The following excerpt from that same
decision — so offensive that no one would dare make such an argument
today — sheds some light on the racism that apparently caused the sudden
perspective change:

The law under consideration has been attacked upon the
ground that it was contrary to public policy, and
deprived the people of the necessary means of self-
defense; that it was an innovation upon the customs and
habits of the people, to which they would not peaceably
submit… We will not say to what extent the early
customs and habits of the people of this state should
be respected and accommodated, where they may come in
conflict with the ideas of intelligent and well-meaning
legislators. A portion of our system of laws, as well
as our public morality, is derived from a people the
most peculiar perhaps of any other in the history and
derivation of its own system. Spain, at different
periods of the world, was dominated over by the
Carthagenians, the Romans, the Vandals, the Snovi, the
Allani, the Visigoths, and Arabs; and to this day there
are found in the Spanish codes traces of the laws and
customs of each of these nations blended together in a
system by no means to be compared with the sound
philosophy and pure morality of the common law.[32]
[emphasis added]

This particular decision is more open than most as to its motivations,
but throughout the South during this period, the existing precedents that
recognized a right to open carry under state constitutional provisions
were being narrowed, or simply ignored. Nor was the reasoning that led to
these changes lost on judges in the North. In 1920, the Ohio Supreme
Court upheld the conviction of a Mexican for concealed carry of a
handgun–while asleep in his own bed. Justice Wanamaker’s scathing
dissent criticized the precedents cited by the majority in defense of this
absurdity:

I desire to give some special attention to some of the
authorities cited, supreme court decisions from
Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two
inferior court decisions from New York, which are given
in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The
southern states have very largely furnished the
precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the
race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive
purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy
is evident upon reading the opinions.
[33]

While not relevant to the issue of racism, Justice Wanamaker’s closing
paragraphs capture well the biting wit and intelligence of this jurist,
who was unfortunately, outnumbered on the bench:

I hold that the laws of the state of Ohio should be so
applied and so interpreted as to favor the law-abiding
rather than the law-violating people. If this decision
shall stand as the law of Ohio, a very large percentage
of the good people of Ohio to-day are criminals,
because they are daily committing criminal acts by
having these weapons in their own homes for their own
defense. The only safe course for them to pursue,
instead of having the weapon concealed on or about
their person, or under their pillow at night, is to
hang the revolver on the wall and put below it a large
placard with these words inscribed:

“The Ohio supreme court having decided that it is a
crime to carry a concealed weapon on one’s person in
one’s home, even in one’s bed or bunk, this weapon is
hung upon the wall that you may see it, and before you
commit any burglary or assault, please, Mr. Burglar,
hand me my gun.”
[34]

There are other examples of remarkable honesty from the state supreme
courts on this subject, of which the finest is probably Florida Supreme
Court Justice Buford’s concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone (1941), in
which a conviction for carrying a handgun without a permit was overturned,
because the handgun was in the glove compartment of a car:

I know something of the history of this legislation.
The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a
great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here
for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber
camps. The same condition existed when the Act was
amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose
of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce
the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in
turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white
citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of
security. The statute was never intended to be applied
to the white population and in practice has never been
so applied.
[35]

Today is not 1893, and when proponents of restrictive gun control insist
that their motivations are color-blind, there is a possibility that they
are telling the truth. Nonetheless, there are some rather interesting
questions that should be asked today. The most obvious question is, “Why
should a police chief or sheriff have any discretion in issuing a
concealed handgun permit?” Here in California, even the state
legislature’s research arm–hardly a nest of pro-gunners–has admitted
that the vast majority of permits to carry concealed handguns in
California are issued to white males.
[36]
Even if overt racism is not an
issue, an official may simply have more empathy with an applicant of a
similar cultural background, and consequently be more able to relate to
the applicant’s concerns. As my wife pointedly reminded a police official
when we applied for concealed weapon permits, “If more police chiefs were
women, a lot more women would get permits, and be able to defend
themselves from rapists.”

Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to openly promote
racist laws, and so the question might be asked what relevance the racist
past of gun control laws has. One concern is that the motivations for
disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the
motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century,
the official rhetoric in support of such laws was that “they” were too
violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same
elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as
child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government. In the last
century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks
was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic
oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were
reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions
of slavery.

In the seventeenth century, the aristocratic power structure of colonial
Virginia found itself confronting a similar challenge from lower class
whites. These poor whites resented how the men who controlled the
government used that power to concentrate wealth into a small number of
hands. These wealthy feeders at the government trough would have disarmed
poor whites if they could, but the threat of both Indian and pirate attack
made this impractical; for all white men “were armed and had to be
armed…” Instead, blacks, who had occupied a poorly defined status
between indentured servant and slave, were reduced to hereditary chattel
slavery, so that poor whites could be economically advantaged, without the
upper class having to give up its privileges.
[37]

Today, the forces that push for gun control seem to be heavily (though
not exclusively) allied with political factions that are committed to
dramatic increases in taxation on the middle class. While it would be
hyperbole to compare higher taxes on the middle class to the suffering and
deprivation of sharecropping or slavery, the analogy of disarming those
whom you wish to economically disadvantage, has a certain worrisome
validity to it.

Another point to consider is that in the American legal system, certain
classifications of governmental discrimination are considered
constitutionally suspect, and these “suspect classifications” (usually
considered to be race and religion) come to a court hearing under a strong
presumption of invalidity. The reason for these “suspect classifications”
is because of the long history of governmental discrimination based on
these classifications, and because these classifications often impinge on
fundamental rights.
[38]

In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of
racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence.
Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of
rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun
control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding
people as a “suspect idea,” and require that the courts use the same
demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control
law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on
race.

Not Mama Jones

Full bird. She hasn’t seen the power in moving on. Feels like she’s got too much invested. At least all her kids will have the same daddy so they can potentially be matches for each other if needed.

I was thinking about them last night. That was best LHHNY line up. No hit Olivia. Jim and Chrissy. Yandy when she had sense. Mama Jones. Jules and Kimbella. Damn Emily Bustamante. Rich Dollars when he was likeable

LMBO. If I could get inside Cissy’s head for one day, I know I would find some gems.

Oftentimes, when people live through trauma, they lose the ability to empathize with others.

YES. So many gems in that line up. Kumbella hair on fire? *I’m still pretty* foot to face *I’m still cute tho* chrissy to Somaya Reece *look at your shoes* Jim making Somaya manager apologize ?. Aww man. So much more.

Thanks dear & likewise!

BUT more importantly EYE wanna see you on Fri. Feb5th! Apollo Theater
Check it out :2dance:

This can be so many athlete’s that its comical….

To be with my Lord *mc hammer version*

Wasn’t that Somaya chick in there somewhere? LOL Whatever happened to her or her music. The last I seen of her she was on L.A. Hair getting a dye job.

Let me wait right with you. Because so you won’t have the baby, but you will have the cheating man? The “logic” these people use is retarded.

Interesting name

SO hmmmmm, you look like my man OR rap like him?

Its one thing for her to not accept the child in private. But she publicly shames and brands the child as an outsider which is downright mean. And shes a hypocrite because she validates herself in the mother role by using his ex wifes children but erases the break baby. Twisted.

Obviously …. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c413043aaa3ea43e88ac8c299ded2ec5f3ac3e5b1f7355a33edcca380e206f06.gif

Thanks and smh

OK cool. Please keep in contact. I will forget or have other things. I’m in ?

LMAO! That’s hilarious! ?

The lil Itty bitty man.

Chrissy about Somaya TEETH.

It doesn’t come on till tonight …. and yes I’m watching

Will do! I just got my flights together yesterday, just trying to figure out where I wanna stay LOL

I’ll text you in a couple weeks with more info.

*grabs yo hand and talks through clenched teeth* STOP IT!

Or put out a CD

She stole him from Siovaughnn. Now the BM stole him from her. That BM ain’t going nowhere.

I never believed everything about Siofdajnviera. Talmbout she gave him an STD and such. Nah, you found out before her and took care of it before she even knew.

What the what? I can’t believe she fixed her mouth to say that to you. I try to respect my elders, but I know, “Biiiiish,…” would’ve come out of my mouth so fast.

RIGHT! All this “music” the people on these shows do and WHO other than K.Michelle, has an album out?! WHO

How do you know they’re laughing at us?

crying over dead kids is a problem for you? You have real issues sir. Who hurt you?

LOL !

Your dad has said nothing about her treating you this way? He’s still with her?

Some folks just enjoy being or acting for no reason & (together) LOL

I still cry about them kids when I think about it. It was hard for me when it happened cause my son was almost 2. Now that he is in school, I cannot even imagine!

Why in the heck NOBODY told me there was a new post… this post is not even a new post anymore according to the amount of comments. Lol…

I concur

She actually is the one that said he gave her the STD and in court it came out that he didn’t.

Heeyyyy…look who made it up! (in my Kevin Hart voice)

We gone get you on EMPIRE!!!

I’m not surprised.
(If this is true) I’m sure BM is planning on baby #2.

I have an uncle that had a baby on his WIFE…when he was in his 50s….his wife (who stole him away from his FIRST wife)…won’t even let the lil boy in the house. My uncle initially SWORE the young chick was lying..the baby wasn’t his..but guess what the DNA said?
Anyway, Gabby reminds me of my uncles 2nd wife.

it doesn’t even happen this much in “underdeveloped” countries.

No diss, but you Uncle ain’t shyt to allowing his wife to treat the kid like that. smfh.

He is pulling a Bill Clinton and is going to pass a whole lot of stuff on his way out. Oh, how I remember those days….Bill had us pretty comfortable.

Yeah and not paying child support is
Forcing mothers and children to become homeless
Forcing mothers to work 23 jobs to take up his slack which causes the child to be left alone to its own devices while mom is out trying to feed the child
Emotionally draining on the mother who is playing the role of both parents.
Forcing mothers to wish the ninja would just die so the kid could at least get some insurance money
FOH..only weak azz fathers use that excuse sooryy azz…Get off that woa is me bullshyt. 33% comes out your check per child..100% of our income goes to the household what the fuk is the problem again?

CTHU……Imma watch it just for you!

Bet money this is from some dead beat ass father. Bye sir.

*screamin*
JenEEEE…bahahahahaaaaa

LOLOLOL!!!

This my deddy and his new lady too. She told him to cut our grown asses off and moved his ass from TN to Hawaii and changed his phone number. He texts on holidays, but we haven’t spoken since. Mind you even as a grown ass woman, me and my father played tennis and went to dinner ATLEAST once a week until she came in the pictcha. But i figure if he let her treat me and my sibs like that, oh the fawk well.

I’m a bit confused by this. How is CS “forcing fathers into unemployment”?

Cuz…them no good bastids would rather QUIT their jobs..than pay.

So they are choosing to be unemployed? Oh ok.. Don’t say anything forced you. YOU quit. Tuh. I know someone like that right damn now. Mind you, he don’t want to pay CS for his two kids, but lives with another woman and HER two kids. smfh

That sounds like it would have made a good as Paternity Court show!!! Lol…

I have watched enough Fatal Vows, Wives with Knives, and Snapped to know that you need to hear his voice ASAP. His wife could be running a ruse like Dee Dee Moore was doing in regards to Abraham Shakespeare

Girl I know a dude with FIVE kids that refuses to work because they would garnish his wages. But let him tell it…his baby mammas FORCED him to quit. If they’d get off his back about child support he could work.

@F**k Folks 2016
New Post: just for you !

I ain’t know it was herpes! I don’t know why I thought it was gonorrhea.

Not mad at that at all. If you know that’s what will happen, then guess what? PAY THE CHILD SUPPORT.

Nope he wasn’t. But steady posting pics talking about how much he loves his kids.
Sorry…just sorry.

Please Gabby knows this one is different. No matter how I feel about Gabby(not good feelings…) she seems to be a woman who will accept her man’s kids…but this one is different, this one’s mom got a hold emotionally on her husband…this one didn’t happen on a break, this one will be the one not spoken of.

I told my ex alllll i wanted from him was to make sure his kids never ran out of shoes for their feet and diapers. Every now and then if i needed help on a bill come through.. he couldn’t do that sew… “Uhh yah honor sir uuuh…”

Those ear to ear grins gabby (alien face) be trying to pull off ain’t foolin me, that girl is unhappy!

Did Obama get on TV and cry over the children he murdered with his drones?

WTF does that have to do with him crying over these kids, and you trying to act like he should not cry?

LOL! ?

Zackly… better yet do what you posed to do so the woman wont feel the need to get the folks involved. Help with the upkeep.. come get them and spend time with them etc…

Jenie..that mess was Horrrible! I almost spit it out in his face..

People are overdoing it. Yes, everyone can see she’s ignoring the kid that’s not a product of their marriage….tho he had his sons way before he met her. My point is her ignoring the baby is a good thing!!

Tbh I wouldn’t trust her around it. She may pretend to be nice but be like an evil step mom as the baby gets older. Some people are bitter and can Idk cruel things. I’m sure Dwayne makes sure his kid has EVERYTHING. Let the baby be happy with it’s Mom. How old is the kid anyway, can he/she talk? I don’t want someone pinching my child and saying he/she crying because of blah blah blah.

Blame the daddy.

You made a really really good point. Never looked at it from that angle. Just saw her as petty for hating a child.

I have a friend with a similar situation and her pops and mom had been separated. Like over 10+ years. Her step mom will not include her in anything and dare her sisters and brothers to tell her about family photos ops or family functions. But her dad will call her and invite her to things

How can you be problack but against doing right by the child you help create? Granted there are some men who do right and WANT to see their kids etc and the mother ain’t shyt.. but most women who are forced to make the father pay just to stay afloat…I ain’t got no love for those dudes..

Could very well be she doesn’t want her child in or around Gabby…Does said baby mama have a gag order, haven’t heard a peep out of her.

You all blaming Gabby for ignoring the kid when Dwayne is to blame. Personally I see it as a good thing. I wouldn’t trust her with my kid, people can be bitter and spiteful. I’m sure Dwayne schedules time to see him/her and makes sure his kid has everything!! Don’t overlook the baby momma. She may be the messy type. I wouldn’t have anything to do with the kid because the Mom may accuse me of mistreating her child. That’s not a good look and the media would run with the story and it could cause more problems with Dwayne and Gabby. Gabby is playing it safe, sometimes we can’t see the method to someone’s madness but it’s there.

Not surprised. D Wade’s baby mom had been everyone’s side piece tho.

Well baby mama said Dwyane is a great father and spends time and provide for their child so….

I hope not cause that babies mom’s wasn’t to attractive..when I had my break baby it was with a mediocre chick who love chewing balls and getting nutted in..watch the traps fellas

He always has to me, I was shocked to find out his real age

Sadly for them it has not slowed us down one bit Bess!…:0)

None of this is Gabbys fault! Just shows how much of a weak POS Wade is – that’s HIS CHILD. IF this is Gabby – what kind of man is he to allow it? I think its the bitter baby mama that is trying to “flex” by keeping the baby away and Gabby gives ZERO ph ucks.

Another well kept woman

I don’t blame Gabby.. I wonder if she can reproduce, certain men need this in their life

I thought she said her career came first…or maybe that was someone else…

Lol hurry it up along and get that insurance and hopefully social security

Is she getting money from Wade? She is. By agreement, he is entitled to have the child in his home at least for half the time. He is still an infant and Wade travels a lot which may be the reason the mother may have not sent the child to Miami to spend time with Wade.

Lol dead…she got SOMETHING… bish make a whole lot more than I do that’s for sure and works a whole lot less lol

I got these BBQ peas that are bomb…have to get some more for sure

She can pretend all she want but she accepted the apology proposal so guess what boo boo yews that baby step mammy too

That’s sad! It’s good that you’ve made your peace with the situation and not allowed it to affect your life going forward.

Makes sense @TheRealLee

They are the snapeas? the wasabi isn’t good..

Pun intended?

World peas Texas bbq….green peas

Gabby made a major sacrifice marrying Wade after the break baby. Gabby was to have Wade’s next child. The break baby’s mama has what Gabby doesn’t and possibly may never have- Wade’s child.

I don’t wish heartbreak on anyone. Gabby is hurting and slighting the break baby and pretending Wade’s first wife’s children are her own seems to make her feel better.

But Gabby is party to taking a wife and mother’s children away and that is a heartbreak far worse than her man having a break baby.

Uh hah uh ha but she ain’t wifey. Liking and marrying are two separate things. He like the sex but won’t wife it. Sooooooo she only a good fck!

What if his mind/heart is on the other side of town with the “ain’t wifey” and he tolerates and wifed his wife because he “messed up”?

I think she said she can’t because she was raped

I don’t think so. SM1 pulled my coattail on this fact a couple months ago. My slow behind thinking all cuz there was a wedding, they must be “married.”

Probably me lol been asking for months. One of the other blogs said it’s nothing in IL, CA, or FL and it’s public record

They still married. Baby mama still a side piece. Just like Jay he married bey but love Rihanna. Same shit.

I read a blind yesterday that said Dade is still creeping with the mother of the break baby.

????

MAYBE SHE CANT HAVE KIDS???

2FOR1….WAKES YOU UP AND CLEANSES YOU OUT AT THE SAME DAMN TIME!!

Yupp, her and Lauren London was screwing this man while he was with the first wife. I heard Lauren left because she found out about Gabby.
Those Hollywood skanks are something else .

Stick a fork in me I’m done!!! Lmao

Dang. Maybe that’s why