Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Open Orders are probably how your ancestors got here.
Our ancestors werent "illegal immigrants"Do you guys ever get tired of sounding like morons?Open Orders are probably how your ancestors got here.
Apparently not since that fallacy is about 20 years old..
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate on that?
Did they ask the Indians permission? I'm not an authority on the subject, but there is a part of the Declaration of Independence that made me question all of this, It says:
"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
Hopefully, you can shed some light by telling me more about your view on how the colonists were not the equivalent of "illegal immigrants."
I don't have a view either way on this, just a curiosity .
There was no country. There was no sense of a border. There was no central government. So there was no possibility of illegal immigrants. They were settlers. If you imagine that the conditions of 250 years ago and today are similar, what you are really postulating is that there is no United States. No property rights, no government. These aren't illegal immigrants. These are actually COLONISTS of a foreign government, just like the colonists that came here and settled in Jamestown.
Thank you for FINALLY agreeing that what we are facing is more in line with colonization than immigration.
Since we are being colonized you know that the foreign colonists have the right of might. They can come to your home, throw you and your family out and take up residence since you don't own it and all. You have to agree that this is the right thing to do.
So, the thread is not about a wall, but you want it to be. How would any such wall “forfeit every Constitutional liberty “?
This isn't our first dance on this subject. So, why discuss it again? Let's look at SOME of the obvious:
1) The Constitution Free Zone was created to aid in border enforcement:
2) Everyone has to bear in mind that the current anti-immigrant effort began over the Rights of private property owners. Americans. The question was, does an American property owner have a Right to protect their property?
Well, the border patrol types got their day in court, the ruling did NOT favor Americans and so the handpicked socialists who control the anti-immigrant effort became wannabe border patrol types. Meanwhile, a federal court decided that Americans stopping foreigners from trespassing over private property are violating the foreigners "civil rights." The anti-immigrant lobby was too stubborn,stupid and then lazy to appeal the court decision and move forward. And so private property Rights were set back at least another fifty years
3) It was the anti-immigrant lobby that wanted the National ID / REAL ID Act that forces people to carry around National ID, use the SSN as identification - both of which impacted the 4th and 16th Amendments.
BTW, the 16th Amendment was on its way out until the right saved that plank straight out of the Communist Manifesto by introducing a National ID system that relies on the SSN as a "unique identifier." That alone gave the government the pretext it needed to keep the SSN and end the efforts that tax patriots were using to defeat the 16th Amendment ... and they were doing so good that my own Congressman introduced legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment and get rid of the IRS.
Oh, we've been down this road many times, but we do this dance now and again. That's only my top 3 of twenty ways the effort to militarize the border / put up a wall / infringe on property Rights versus leaving the border alone and open need a full discussion.
Editorializing is not objective.
You asked how. Now you want to criticize??? Objective or not, I'm telling you the facts.
No, you are not.
Don't start being childish because you don't like the facts. ....
Our ancestors werent "illegal immigrants"Do you guys ever get tired of sounding like morons?
Apparently not since that fallacy is about 20 years old..
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate on that?
Did they ask the Indians permission? I'm not an authority on the subject, but there is a part of the Declaration of Independence that made me question all of this, It says:
"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
Hopefully, you can shed some light by telling me more about your view on how the colonists were not the equivalent of "illegal immigrants."
I don't have a view either way on this, just a curiosity .
There was no country. There was no sense of a border. There was no central government. So there was no possibility of illegal immigrants. They were settlers. If you imagine that the conditions of 250 years ago and today are similar, what you are really postulating is that there is no United States. No property rights, no government. These aren't illegal immigrants. These are actually COLONISTS of a foreign government, just like the colonists that came here and settled in Jamestown.
Thank you for FINALLY agreeing that what we are facing is more in line with colonization than immigration.
Since we are being colonized you know that the foreign colonists have the right of might. They can come to your home, throw you and your family out and take up residence since you don't own it and all. You have to agree that this is the right thing to do.
I'm not sure I have a position that can be understood unless you are able to consider numerous sides of the issues and listen to each before drawing a conclusion.
For example, the Constitution gives the federal government a limited role regarding foreigners. And, if you examine recent Supreme Court rulings, the right is losing ground because they cannot comprehend the big picture.
This isn't our first dance on this subject. So, why discuss it again? Let's look at SOME of the obvious:
1) The Constitution Free Zone was created to aid in border enforcement:
2) Everyone has to bear in mind that the current anti-immigrant effort began over the Rights of private property owners. Americans. The question was, does an American property owner have a Right to protect their property?
Well, the border patrol types got their day in court, the ruling did NOT favor Americans and so the handpicked socialists who control the anti-immigrant effort became wannabe border patrol types. Meanwhile, a federal court decided that Americans stopping foreigners from trespassing over private property are violating the foreigners "civil rights." The anti-immigrant lobby was too stubborn,stupid and then lazy to appeal the court decision and move forward. And so private property Rights were set back at least another fifty years
3) It was the anti-immigrant lobby that wanted the National ID / REAL ID Act that forces people to carry around National ID, use the SSN as identification - both of which impacted the 4th and 16th Amendments.
BTW, the 16th Amendment was on its way out until the right saved that plank straight out of the Communist Manifesto by introducing a National ID system that relies on the SSN as a "unique identifier." That alone gave the government the pretext it needed to keep the SSN and end the efforts that tax patriots were using to defeat the 16th Amendment ... and they were doing so good that my own Congressman introduced legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment and get rid of the IRS.
Oh, we've been down this road many times, but we do this dance now and again. That's only my top 3 of twenty ways the effort to militarize the border / put up a wall / infringe on property Rights versus leaving the border alone and open need a full discussion.
Editorializing is not objective.
You asked how. Now you want to criticize??? Objective or not, I'm telling you the facts.
No, you are not.
Don't start being childish because you don't like the facts. ....
Save it for your ACLU meeting.
Editorializing is not objective.
You asked how. Now you want to criticize??? Objective or not, I'm telling you the facts.
No, you are not.
Don't start being childish because you don't like the facts. ....
Save it for your ACLU meeting.
ACLU??? ......
Our ancestors werent "illegal immigrants"I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate on that?
Did they ask the Indians permission? I'm not an authority on the subject, but there is a part of the Declaration of Independence that made me question all of this, It says:
"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
Hopefully, you can shed some light by telling me more about your view on how the colonists were not the equivalent of "illegal immigrants."
I don't have a view either way on this, just a curiosity .
There was no country. There was no sense of a border. There was no central government. So there was no possibility of illegal immigrants. They were settlers. If you imagine that the conditions of 250 years ago and today are similar, what you are really postulating is that there is no United States. No property rights, no government. These aren't illegal immigrants. These are actually COLONISTS of a foreign government, just like the colonists that came here and settled in Jamestown.
Thank you for FINALLY agreeing that what we are facing is more in line with colonization than immigration.
Since we are being colonized you know that the foreign colonists have the right of might. They can come to your home, throw you and your family out and take up residence since you don't own it and all. You have to agree that this is the right thing to do.
I'm not sure I have a position that can be understood unless you are able to consider numerous sides of the issues and listen to each before drawing a conclusion.
For example, the Constitution gives the federal government a limited role regarding foreigners. And, if you examine recent Supreme Court rulings, the right is losing ground because they cannot comprehend the big picture.
The big picture is that we are being invaded and colonized by numerous other peoples.
You asked how. Now you want to criticize??? Objective or not, I'm telling you the facts.
No, you are not.
Don't start being childish because you don't like the facts. ....
Save it for your ACLU meeting.
ACLU??? ......
You're aping their slogans.
.... They sit idly by and try to chant the mantra that we don't have Rights; ......
No, you are not.
Don't start being childish because you don't like the facts. ....
Save it for your ACLU meeting.
ACLU??? ......
You're aping their slogans.
You need to learn how to read. Trolling and lying will not lead you to any productive conversation.
There shan't be open borders!
How about that?
Deal with it!
As long as you want cheap lettuce and want to shit on a clean toilet, there will be open borders.
There shan't be open borders!
How about that?
Deal with it!
As long as you want cheap lettuce and want to shit on a clean toilet, there will be open borders.
Open Orders are probably how your ancestors got here.
.... They sit idly by and try to chant the mantra that we don't have Rights; ......
Stop lying. No one is chanting such a mantra.
Don't start being childish because you don't like the facts. ....
Save it for your ACLU meeting.
ACLU??? ......
You're aping their slogans.
You need to learn how to read. Trolling and lying will not lead you to any productive conversation.
I read very well and I don't lie. Perhaps you are ignorant of the slogans you are repeating.
.... They sit idly by and try to chant the mantra that we don't have Rights; ......
Stop lying. No one is chanting such a mantra.
You chant it every day. ....
.... They sit idly by and try to chant the mantra that we don't have Rights; ......
Stop lying. No one is chanting such a mantra.
You chant it every day. ....
Not even once, liar.
Save it for your ACLU meeting.
ACLU??? ......
You're aping their slogans.
You need to learn how to read. Trolling and lying will not lead you to any productive conversation.
I read very well and I don't lie. Perhaps you are ignorant of the slogans you are repeating.
I'm not ignorant of a damn thing. ....
Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: “There shall be open borders.”
Bartley accepted what the erasure of America’s borders and an endless influx or foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country.
Said Bartley, “I think the nation-state is finished.”
Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: “There shall be open borders.”
Bartley accepted what the erasure of America’s borders and an endless influx or foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country.
Said Bartley, “I think the nation-state is finished.”
Globalists & Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?
