America Founded as a Christian Nation

[Porter Rockwell]

Today’s Christianity has a completely different meaning than in years past. The right wing Christianity we see in the republican party has almost nothing in common besides the name Christian with actual historical Christianity.

The call for violence and the racism. The GOP leader ship is losing its last two African-Americans in the house and senate.

The willingness to commit atrocities and blame the victims.

The greed and the worship of money.

The lies and dishonesty.

and the terrible racism.

and they are so quick to anger. They’ll say what are you talking about? What racism? what greed? And then you start giving examples and right away they turn on you and become very angry and intolerant.

I don't like what you said, but I agree with most of it. In the OP, I really tried to get the posterity of the founders / framers to reexamine their thinking process.

IF the intent of the GOP is to recruit blacks, then they will have to do what Lincoln said would have take place - that is to wholly mingle or wholly part.

The problem with left wing thinking is that the integration is going to make the whites extinct as a race and the culture, values, and principles that led us to greatness are going to be flushed down the toilet.

The left is honest about what they want: multiculturalism (which leads to a one race society and eventually the demise of that civilization) a Nanny State, gun control so that the citizenry can never oppose a tyrannical government, an end to religious Liberty (so that we will all have to bow down to secular humanism).. or worse Sharia Law as the nation fills up with Muslims who seek to convert or kill us.

The right is beginning to adopt a lot of their anger and hatred from the left. On this board, they have a Malcom X wannabe and his posts are laced with black racism, seething hatred, and blame for his failures in life. It is sad, but the whites / conservatives / Republicans are beginning to mimic that and most had rather get into a pissing contest than have a civil conversation.

As for me, I've never denied anyone the unalienable Rights they were born with (given by a Creator, your God... whomever you deem that to be.) At the same time, I have reserved the Right to say no. If I don't want to hire someone, I couldn't care less what Uncle Scam says. If I don't want to rent to you, I won't. And if we cannot enforce our Rights, it is because WE voted for the politicians that took those Rights, reduced them and allowed the courts to take a giant dump on them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION Part 3 Parts 1 and 2 located at posts # 941 and 942

BEFORE the secularists, atheists, and other non-believers will allow me to have my own thread, I am required to bow down, kiss their ass, and pay homage to their favorite topics, the OP be damned. These are harsh words coming from a minister of the Gospel, but one I will address nonetheless.

The very first objection the secularists, atheists and other non-believers level is an across the board denial that the founders / framers were Christians. They like to call them deists, theists, and atheists - and the only figure they chose to argue about on this thread was Thomas Jefferson, as if he were the only founder. Let me say, up front, this is NOT an opportunity for the resident troll to jump in with the straw man B.S. and lies. This is a post that explains my position. If you reach another conclusion, God bless you. I'm not adding to the 400 + posts wherein one individual accuses everyone of being a liar, moron, etc. This is just to resolve the issue so that we can progress.

Now, bear in mind this thread has a beginning in posts #1 and 2. Anyway, here is a list of the founders / framers by religious affiliation.

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

It is noted that sometimes a founder / framer might be labeled twice due to them changing their religious affiliation. Our first 805 posts were dominated (more than half) over Thomas Jefferson. He was only one man. So, we will cross that bridge first. According to the above link, if you find Thomas Jefferson's name, next to it you will find the wording (Episcopalian (Deist.) So, I clicked on that link. Let me share with you what that says:

"President Thomas Jefferson was a Protestant. Jefferson was raised as an Episcopalian (Anglican). He was also influenced by English Deists and has often been identified by historians as a Deist. He held many beliefs in common with Unitarians of the time period, and sometimes wrote that he thought the whole country would become Unitarian. He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Wrote: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Source: "Jefferson's Religious Beliefs", by Rebecca Bowman, Monticello Research Department, August 1997 [URL: Thomas Jefferson's Monticello - Official Website]."

Then I went to another site to quote what constitutes a deist. I will quote the source as soon as my quotes and commentary are completed:

"One can differentiate a Founding Father influenced by Deism from an orthodox Christian believer by following certain criteria. Anyone seeking the answer should consider at least the following four points. First, an inquirer should examine the Founder’s church involvement."

The FACTS: - Thomas Jefferson was an Episcopalian. According to one site, I quote:

THIS WILL REQUIRE SEVERAL CONTINUATIONS - bear with me




...

 

[Porter Rockwell]

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION Part 4 Parts 1 and 2 located at posts # 941, 942 and 962

"Jefferson was deeply committed to core beliefs - for example, the existence of a benevolent and just God. Yet, as with any human, some of Jefferson’s beliefs shifted over time and were marked by uncertainty, and he accepted that some of his less central beliefs might be wrong

...Jefferson’s views on an afterlife developed over time, and historians disagree on what he believed in this regard.
Jefferson spoke passionately about the prospect of meeting loved ones in heaven, assuring a bereaved John Adams after the death of his wife Abigail, that “it is of some comfort to us both that the term is not very distant

...at one point he seemed to endorse “deism,” but only after defining the term as simply a belief in one god, more accurately “monotheism.”18

...Jefferson did support the Virginia Bible Society in its efforts to ensure that any family in Virginia unable to afford a Bible could obtain one. He believed that the Bible contained useful lessons, in spite of its corruptions

...He regularly attended church of various denominations, but he declared that “I am of a sect by myself.”

...Technically, he was not a deist if the term is understood to mean belief in a god who created the universe and then left it to “run” on its own according to natural laws, a “clock-maker” god. Jefferson did believe that God actively engaged in time, sustaining creation on an ongoing basis; yet, in his rejection of Biblical miracles and belief that natural laws were the language of God, he certainly is deistic.

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

NOW back to the site I was quoting from and the link will follow at the end of this part of the discussion of Jefferson:

"The second consideration is an evaluation of the participation of a Founder in the ordinances or sacraments of his church."

Nobody tells us when Jefferson quit being an Episcopalian; we know that he did go to church regularly; he expected most of America to become Unitarians

IT WILL REQUIRE YET ANOTHER POSTING FOR THIS

 

[Porter Rockwell]

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION Part 5 Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 located at posts # 941, 942, 962 and 963

Going back to my citing source as we continue:

"Third, one should note the religious language a Founder used. Non-Christian Deists such as Paine refused to use Judeo-Christian terminology and described God with such expressions as “Providence,”

I see this as being only partially true. Christian ministers of the period used the terminology Divine Providence, which is what Jefferson used when he penned the Declaration of Independence.

That is my observation and I'd be glad to refer you to sermons wherein mainstream Christian ministers used that terminology.

Finally, going back to my citing source, it finishes with the four distinctions between deists and Christians:

"Finally, one should consider what friends, family, and, above all, clergy said about a Founder’s religious faith."

FACTS: Jefferson helps the Virginia Bible Society make sure that every home in America that wants a Bible in the home, but can't afford one has one.

Thomas Jefferson goes to church regularly. His use of the terminology Divine Providence in the declaration of Independence leaves him in the company of Christians. More telling is the fact that within weeks after completing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson is working on the Virginia State Constitution of 1776. I want to cite you something from that document:

"SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Constitution of Virginia, 1776

That should be enough to shut the door to that misapplied "separation of church and state" B.S. once and for all.

When it came to religion, Jefferson was in a world of his own. He was tired of organized religion and the pet theories of the modern day churchianity. His views were fluid, something secularists and atheists refuse to acknowledge. I will shut the door to this with one last quote:

"Jefferson’s views on an afterlife developed over time, and historians disagree on what he believed in this regard. As a young man, he seemed to have a relatively conventional view of heaven. A firm believer in man’s free will, he thought that good works were the way to salvation and that rewards and punishments for actions on earth were “an important incentive” for people to act ethically.6 Yet, as his views matured, particularly his materialism, he likely encountered doubts. As he aged, Jefferson spoke passionately about the prospect of meeting loved ones in heaven, assuring a bereaved John Adams after the death of his wife Abigail, that “it is of some comfort to us both that the term is not very distant at which we are to deposit, in the same cerement, our sorrows and suffering bodies, and to ascend in essence to an ecstatic meeting with the friends we have loved & lost and whom we shall still love and never lose again.”7 In the end, he seems to have believed in a heaven or, at least, as historian Johann Neem says, he had “hope."

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Jefferson was but ONE of the founders. And, with that note, the door is closed on that controversy. I believe that Jefferson was a Christian - maybe not the kind you think, but just as he described himself and led his life. If you feel differently, God bless you, but I am finished debating it and waking up every day to see what some troll claims I said, didn't say, etc. I stand by findings and those are disputed on every side by historians because they don't really know. Cased closed. We move forward again.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#965 FOR THE RECORD:

here is TJ opinion of a Calvinism vs Constitutional Calvinist | The American Conservative

And TJ to John Adams. April II, 1823, ibid., p. 289: "I can never join Calvin in addressing his God. He was indeed an atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false God, he did. The being described in five points, is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin."

45 Knowles, "The Religious Ideas . . .", pp. 203-204.



FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

Constitutional Calvinist | The American Conservative


This is the best life of Connecticut’s foremost Founding Father ever written. More than that, it demonstrates once and for all that Calvinism played a very significant role in shaping the American Revolution and U.S. Constitution. Henceforth, historians will have to take account of Mark David Hall’s book in all studies of “the creation of the American republic.”

Hall sets out to correct a serious flaw in the historiography. While prominent accounts of the American Revolution’s intellectual underpinnings devote considerable attention to the influence of Lockean, classical republican, Scottish Enlightenment traditions, the influence of Reformed Protestantism—that is, Calvinism—tends to be overlooked. Although the focus is on Sherman’s political thinking, Hall tell us, his book shows that the Reformed tradition was central to the thought of Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Oliver Ellsworth, Jonathan Trumbull, William Paterson, John Witherspoon, and several other prominent Calvinist politicians as well.

As Hall puts it, “I am not arguing that Calvinism was the only influence on Sherman and his colleagues, simply that it was a very important influence that needs to be taken more seriously if we are to appreciate the political theory and actions of many of America’s founders.” Hall here continues the project on which he, Daniel L. Dreisbach, and Jeffry H. Morrison have long been jointly and severally embarked: that of fleshing out the story of religion’s influence on the politics of the Revolution and Early Republic.

Hall decries the tendency to write as if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams (a group disproportionately composed of deists and marginally committed Christians) were the entirety of the Revolutionary generation, and then to deduce the meaning of America’s original commitment to religious freedom from the ideas of those men. One illustration of this tendency is that, by Hall’s calculation, Supreme Court justices writing opinions about the First Amendment’s religion clauses have referred to Thomas Jefferson 112 times and to Sherman only three, even though Sherman helped write the First Amendment and Jefferson was away on diplomatic business in France at the time.

 

[Correll]

For non citizens, being here is a privilege. If they are here, their children will be born here and they will be citizens and get all those benefits, in a generation anyways.

Partially true, but only because the average American will not examine the historical facts. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. Most people think that the immigration issue is what drives me to oppose the enforcement of that travesty, but it certainly is not.

Let's take this issue:

Even in a very liberal rendering of the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When those words were penned, the people were already overwhelmingly Christian, so nobody needed to establish a religion. Jews financed the War of Independence, invested in the creation of the Republic, etc. but they were never citizens. It didn't stop them from participating in the free market. The point is Congress (the federal Congress) could not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That Amendment could not be construed to impact what already existed; it had NO bearing on the states; it did not limit the people.

So, what happened that allowed the federal government to violate the First Amendment, as intended, and impose a mythical "separation of church and state" on the states (i.e. as in matters like education and marriage) ? That would be the 14th Amendment, of course. Oh yeah, there is a separation of church and state... just as fairies and Santa Claus, along with pro-wrestling are real. The government decides what constitutes a church, where they may assemble to worship, and what tenets of faith to follow lest they lose their non profit status. AND, if my critics on this thread had their way, THEY think they get to determine what constitutes a Christian and what doesn't! All of that exists, along with birthright citizenship due to the 14th Amendment.

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

The citizens of a nation, have the right to decide who to invite to join them.

This is an universal right.


The way that I as an American do not have any "Right" to move to and live in say, the Bahamas, if the people of that nation do not want me to join them,


is the way that they, the people of the Bahamas do not have the right to move here, if we do not want them to join us.

 

[Correll]

I wonder what "Christian Principle" anti miscegenation laws were supposed to uphold?

No, you don't. You are just smearing America because you are anti-American.


It is important to remember that a good portion of the Left, is not here to argue how best to serve American interests,


but to fight against American interests.

Anti miscegenation laws are in America's best interest? How? Why?

CONGRATULATIONS. You have asked a question that makes you the second winner of the day. This has a peripheral relevancy to the OP. That is the FIRST question remotely related... though still not the subject of the OP. May I?

As of November 2019, China's population stands at 1.435 billion, the largest of any country in the world. According to the 2010 census, 91.51% of the population was Han Chinese

Demographics of China - Wikipedia

There are other countries that are basically one race:

Monoethnicity - Wikipedia

I did not see Zimbabwe on that list, but they are 99.7 percent black.

NOBODY critical of this thread would read the OP, but John Winthrop's sermon (link in post # 1) described WHY the colonists were coming here.

I contrast our history with WHY Jews went to Israel and began calling themselves Israelis. They are an American ally, but their views on nationality are perfectly acceptable unless those views are practiced in America. Here is a link and notice the differences between what is acceptable in the United States and what is practiced in America:

Is "Israeli" a Nationality?

Americans have become obsessed with the amalgamation of the races. If you cannot start your day off with the daily mantra of "it doesn't matter what race, color, creed, nationality or sexual persuasion you are..." then you cannot have the luxury of calling yourself an American. Yet those same people in this country will willingly do business with China, Korea, Japan, etc. and never give it a second thought. I suppose "racism" is okay if it isn't whites who practice it.

The United States supports the right of every nation in the world to seek independence and the people have their own homeland. Ironically, none of those nations seek to be a city on a shining hill; an example to the rest of the world; the leader in the cause of Liberty and Freedom. Those countries don't fight the wars, rebuild countries, send missionaries into torn countries nor humanitarians to help them rebuild.

To the liberals - they believe if we dare have our own homeland it is offensive, "racist," and supposedly contrary to all that we stand for as a nation. As of today, I proclaim my ignorance because, although such greats as JFK and Ronald Reagan were aware and supportive of the words in Winthrop's sermon, NOBODY wants us to have a homeland for the posterity of the founders / framers - to whom the United States Constitution sought to secure the blessings of Liberty for.

The reality is, the immigration laws in place today let people come in from every country on an equal basis. The problem is, the white people are only 1 in 13 of the world's population. So, under the current scheme, we dilute the white people and destroy Christianity in our own country as most of the foreigners who get naturalized each year are non-white and non-Christian with an agenda 180 degrees diametrically opposed to the Republic and the principles we are guaranteed in our Constitution. This is evidenced by the fact that foreigners and their immediate offspring have 13 percent of the U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate seats. Of those 68 seats they hold, 57 are Democrats.

From what I gather, Correll is okay with that process, provided we do it "legally"... but, I will let him speak for himself. We, like many of the countries we support, should have a Right to self determination, our own homeland, and the means to hold onto our own values. Neither the right or the left see it that way, so this morning I'm scratching my head because I really don't understand what all the hoopla is about.

Both sides want a government God; both sides say it's okay to destroy America on the installment plan provided we enforce anti-white immigration laws and take a giant dump on unalienable Rights, and NOBODY addresses the fact that black genes are more predominant over white genes at a ratio of 4 to 1 and well over 80 percent of interracial children grow up to be Democrats with NO love of the values and principles upon which the Republic rests.

I want a ban on immigration, legal and illegal, immediately and for at least the next 50 years.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

FOR THE RECORD:

here is TJ opinion of a Calvinism vs Constitutional Calvinist | The American Conservative

And TJ to John Adams. April II, 1823, ibid., p. 289: "I can never join Calvin in addressing his God. He was indeed an atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false God, he did. The being described in five points, is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin."

45 Knowles, "The Religious Ideas . . .", pp. 203-204.



FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

Constitutional Calvinist | The American Conservative


This is the best life of Connecticut’s foremost Founding Father ever written. More than that, it demonstrates once and for all that Calvinism played a very significant role in shaping the American Revolution and U.S. Constitution. Henceforth, historians will have to take account of Mark David Hall’s book in all studies of “the creation of the American republic.”

Hall sets out to correct a serious flaw in the historiography. While prominent accounts of the American Revolution’s intellectual underpinnings devote considerable attention to the influence of Lockean, classical republican, Scottish Enlightenment traditions, the influence of Reformed Protestantism—that is, Calvinism—tends to be overlooked. Although the focus is on Sherman’s political thinking, Hall tell us, his book shows that the Reformed tradition was central to the thought of Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Oliver Ellsworth, Jonathan Trumbull, William Paterson, John Witherspoon, and several other prominent Calvinist politicians as well.

As Hall puts it, “I am not arguing that Calvinism was the only influence on Sherman and his colleagues, simply that it was a very important influence that needs to be taken more seriously if we are to appreciate the political theory and actions of many of America’s founders.” Hall here continues the project on which he, Daniel L. Dreisbach, and Jeffry H. Morrison have long been jointly and severally embarked: that of fleshing out the story of religion’s influence on the politics of the Revolution and Early Republic.

Hall decries the tendency to write as if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams (a group disproportionately composed of deists and marginally committed Christians) were the entirety of the Revolutionary generation, and then to deduce the meaning of America’s original commitment to religious freedom from the ideas of those men. One illustration of this tendency is that, by Hall’s calculation, Supreme Court justices writing opinions about the First Amendment’s religion clauses have referred to Thomas Jefferson 112 times and to Sherman only three, even though Sherman helped write the First Amendment and Jefferson was away on diplomatic business in France at the time.

UPDATED NOTFOOLEDBYW - YOU ARE A FILTHY LIAR. SEE THE UPDATES THAT PROVE SAME. Bolded for everyone's convenience below the stats in item # 1

NOTFOOLEDBYW'S FINAL RESPONSE

This thread is now 917 posts long as I begin this response. Of those, NOTFOOLEDBYW has made a total of 168 posts. They are posts # 78, 80, 111, 113, 118, 126, 140, 154, 157, 158, 159, 162, 172, 174, 179, 189, 192, 195, 196, 197, 203, 204, 205, 212, 220, 224, 225, 232, 233, 234, 235, 240, 240, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 254, 255, 256, 267, 279, 280, 285, 290, 296, 297, 302, 307, 309, 318, 321, 328, 330, 335, 339, 340, 341, 345, 347, 350, 350, 351, 352, 367, 370, 373, 381, 393, 394, 399, 401, 404, 411, 412, 413, 420, 421, 425, 426, 429, 430, 431, 432, 468, 485, 500, 504, 508, 512, 516, 519, 525, 527, 537, 539, 541, 546, 549, 551, 554, 557, 559, 561, 563, 565, 566, 569, 570, 574, 577, 581, 582, 587, 589, 606, 607, 610, 626, 630, 636, 642, 644, 646, 684, 688, 699, 700, 703, 704, 707, 708, 709, 715, 716, 718, 724, 725, 730, 740, 744, 746, 747, 750, 753, 754, 755, 761, 762, 769, 774, 782, 7998, 800, ... that is 155 posts out of 805, 807, 812, 824, 827, 830, 831, 832, 844, 847, 860, 872, 899, 904

In virtually every post NOTFOOLEDBYW has insulted posters, called them liars, misrepresented people, and NOBODY has defended his positions.


By contrast, NOTFOOLEDBYW has been challenged by numerous posters to whom NOTFOOLEDBYW has called liars, fools, morons, and accused them of all manner of wrongdoing. Those posters responded a total of 126 times in posts: #120, 130, 134, 167, 169,174, 176, 175, 176, 180, 185, 206, 207, 250, 282, 299, 346, 346, 354, 396, 397, 403, 405, 406, 407, 414, 415, 416, 424, 427, 428, 433, 434, 438, 439, 440, 445, 446, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 460, 461, 464, 465, 466, 467, 469, 470, 472, 474, 476, 483, 484, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 496, 497, 498, 499, 501, 502, 517, 518, 521, 526, 528, 531, 558, 562, 564, 567, 568, 571, 573, 576, 578, 579, 588, 591, 593, 594, 595, 596, 598, 599, 600, 603, 608, 612, 613, 615, 618, 627, 628, 629, 633, 645, 648, 653, 658, 665, 668, 698, 701, 705, 706, 711, 722, 723, 726, 751, 764, 765, 779

I have been obliged to respond to NOTFOOLEDBYW a total of 85 times personally. That is a total of 379+ posts that have revolved around this one poster. I'm not updating any posters that responded beyond post # 805

One poster or another has successfully defeated each and every argument he brings to the table. He is now remaining, claiming I lied about Thomas Jefferson - as if that would change the balance of this discussion. Here is my position:

1) When other posters began discussing this as a conversation rather than a point by point, let's prove everything, I got conversational. I quoted Thomas Jefferson from an unnamed source in an online general conversation.

I really do not want to restart any conversations with THIS idiot about Thomas Jefferson and my quote. But, I cut and pasted the quote as I found it on the Internet:

http://peace2you.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Faith-of-Founding-Fathers1.pdf

If you look a few quotes down, you can see where I got it from. When that troll made a big deal out of my inadvertent faux pas of leaving out the link, I looked up the book from where the quote was obtained and put it in post #552. I DIDN'T LIE AND NOTFOOLEDBYW IS A ROTTEN, FILTHY, STINKING, LIAR. ALL of his posts were responded to honestly and openly. Check his posts... he's quoting me and it's there.


2) NOTFOOLEDBYW seized upon that accusing me of posting a lie; even claiming that I edited my source. I did not. I did, however, look at where my source got their material and I quoted where it could be found. I did not lie

3) Regardless of how that material reads, the bottom line is Thomas Jefferson said he was a Christian and I took him at his word as his early life indicates such. Jefferson states, and it was quoted on this thread, that his life experiences changed his outlook. Nothing has changed what Jefferson said at that point in his life

4) Regardless of how many times founders did or said one thing or another, I look at the bottom line and if over half the posts here are either one man arguing against those points compared to the scores of posts disagreeing with him, there is no point to prove. If this matters to you and you want to wade through who said what, you have each post - minus my own (which is unnecessary since all those people who agreed with me either quoted the relevant parts and / or the post itself. My point here is I did not lie and every time that troll posts, I will simply cut and paste this response (that took some hours to research just for him.)

If he still wants to call me a liar, he can do it to my face. Otherwise, he has been successfully defeated by other posters to the point that nothing I have to say would be relevant anyway. IF there are any other points to be addressed, I will be happy to entertain them, just not by the resident troll. The dumb ass needs to read. This post refutes his account of what happened.. I know because I'm the one who did it. I copied and pasted the ******* quote as it appeared and no amount of political jockeying will change that. It's over dumbass

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Partially true, but only because the average American will not examine the historical facts. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. Most people think that the immigration issue is what drives me to oppose the enforcement of that travesty, but it certainly is not.

Let's take this issue:

Even in a very liberal rendering of the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When those words were penned, the people were already overwhelmingly Christian, so nobody needed to establish a religion. Jews financed the War of Independence, invested in the creation of the Republic, etc. but they were never citizens. It didn't stop them from participating in the free market. The point is Congress (the federal Congress) could not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That Amendment could not be construed to impact what already existed; it had NO bearing on the states; it did not limit the people.

So, what happened that allowed the federal government to violate the First Amendment, as intended, and impose a mythical "separation of church and state" on the states (i.e. as in matters like education and marriage) ? That would be the 14th Amendment, of course. Oh yeah, there is a separation of church and state... just as fairies and Santa Claus, along with pro-wrestling are real. The government decides what constitutes a church, where they may assemble to worship, and what tenets of faith to follow lest they lose their non profit status. AND, if my critics on this thread had their way, THEY think they get to determine what constitutes a Christian and what doesn't! All of that exists, along with birthright citizenship due to the 14th Amendment.

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

The citizens of a nation, have the right to decide who to invite to join them.

This is an universal right.


The way that I as an American do not have any "Right" to move to and live in say, the Bahamas, if the people of that nation do not want me to join them,


is the way that they, the people of the Bahamas do not have the right to move here, if we do not want them to join us.

Unfortunately America was not built on the premise you'd like. Unlike other nations, we are the only country that acknowledges unalienable Rights. Those Rights are given by our Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The earliest court decisions said those Rights are above the reach of government. So, yes, constitutionally, people from foreign countries CAN, constitutionally come here. Unalienable has a meaning when the founders signed the Declaration of Independence, there were no American citizens.

We can regulate the people that come here to some degree; however, the anti-white immigration laws wherein they are killing off the whites sure as Hell will never be the answer. On two points you are siding with the Democrats - you are denying that unalienable Rights exist and that who the government grants the rest of the government granted "rights" are given by a government God. That is just the way it is. You know, I studied law, worked in immigration law for six years at one time and never got the right to understand the way those laws work. You're taking a giant shit on your Rights and THAT is what drove me out of the legal field. BTW, I spent thousands of unpaid hours helping our people and learning this stuff. I can't get the right wing to take an hour to study the concept of unalienable Rights.

I promise you with all I hold near and dear to enjoy the last years of Trump because the precedents you're creating will be used against you and we will have NO RIGHTS in two more election cycles. The right will have signed their own death warrant. But, I don't want to fight you over it any longer. You sound like you won more federal cases than I did.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I wonder what "Christian Principle" anti miscegenation laws were supposed to uphold?

No, you don't. You are just smearing America because you are anti-American.


It is important to remember that a good portion of the Left, is not here to argue how best to serve American interests,


but to fight against American interests.

Anti miscegenation laws are in America's best interest? How? Why?

CONGRATULATIONS. You have asked a question that makes you the second winner of the day. This has a peripheral relevancy to the OP. That is the FIRST question remotely related... though still not the subject of the OP. May I?

As of November 2019, China's population stands at 1.435 billion, the largest of any country in the world. According to the 2010 census, 91.51% of the population was Han Chinese

Demographics of China - Wikipedia

There are other countries that are basically one race:

Monoethnicity - Wikipedia

I did not see Zimbabwe on that list, but they are 99.7 percent black.

NOBODY critical of this thread would read the OP, but John Winthrop's sermon (link in post # 1) described WHY the colonists were coming here.

I contrast our history with WHY Jews went to Israel and began calling themselves Israelis. They are an American ally, but their views on nationality are perfectly acceptable unless those views are practiced in America. Here is a link and notice the differences between what is acceptable in the United States and what is practiced in America:

Is "Israeli" a Nationality?

Americans have become obsessed with the amalgamation of the races. If you cannot start your day off with the daily mantra of "it doesn't matter what race, color, creed, nationality or sexual persuasion you are..." then you cannot have the luxury of calling yourself an American. Yet those same people in this country will willingly do business with China, Korea, Japan, etc. and never give it a second thought. I suppose "racism" is okay if it isn't whites who practice it.

The United States supports the right of every nation in the world to seek independence and the people have their own homeland. Ironically, none of those nations seek to be a city on a shining hill; an example to the rest of the world; the leader in the cause of Liberty and Freedom. Those countries don't fight the wars, rebuild countries, send missionaries into torn countries nor humanitarians to help them rebuild.

To the liberals - they believe if we dare have our own homeland it is offensive, "racist," and supposedly contrary to all that we stand for as a nation. As of today, I proclaim my ignorance because, although such greats as JFK and Ronald Reagan were aware and supportive of the words in Winthrop's sermon, NOBODY wants us to have a homeland for the posterity of the founders / framers - to whom the United States Constitution sought to secure the blessings of Liberty for.

The reality is, the immigration laws in place today let people come in from every country on an equal basis. The problem is, the white people are only 1 in 13 of the world's population. So, under the current scheme, we dilute the white people and destroy Christianity in our own country as most of the foreigners who get naturalized each year are non-white and non-Christian with an agenda 180 degrees diametrically opposed to the Republic and the principles we are guaranteed in our Constitution. This is evidenced by the fact that foreigners and their immediate offspring have 13 percent of the U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate seats. Of those 68 seats they hold, 57 are Democrats.

From what I gather, Correll is okay with that process, provided we do it "legally"... but, I will let him speak for himself. We, like many of the countries we support, should have a Right to self determination, our own homeland, and the means to hold onto our own values. Neither the right or the left see it that way, so this morning I'm scratching my head because I really don't understand what all the hoopla is about.

Both sides want a government God; both sides say it's okay to destroy America on the installment plan provided we enforce anti-white immigration laws and take a giant dump on unalienable Rights, and NOBODY addresses the fact that black genes are more predominant over white genes at a ratio of 4 to 1 and well over 80 percent of interracial children grow up to be Democrats with NO love of the values and principles upon which the Republic rests.

I want a ban on immigration, legal and illegal, immediately and for at least the next 50 years.

Dude, for real. If you studied the 14th Amendment and nullified it - which is more realistic than pie in the sky B.S. the Democrats fed you, there would be no sizable immigration because without the 14th Amendment, the only people who would come to the U.S. would be white. There would be NO so - called "anchor babies," and if we stopped the LEGAL drug trade and gave incentives for employers to hire American workers, ALL of this would go away.

What's sad is that in the 1990s up to 2000 we had this war won. The Dems got you on their side without even a cursory examination of the facts. BTW, that opening post I did here... that link. If people read it and understood what our destiny is...

 

[ChemEngineer]

Porter Rockwell , I have never seen anyone document the gaffes and errors of another as comprehensively as you did above. This begs the question of why you would waste so much of your time on someone so underserving of it, beginning with his ignorant name NotfooledbyW

Leftists that hateful belong on your Ignore List for very good reasons. I'll just give you a few:

Go from the presence of a foolish man. - The Holy Bible

A lion does not turn around when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb

If you stop to throw a rock at every dog that barks, you'll never get to your destination. - Winston Churchill

God bless you and increase your territory, my Friend.

 

[Correll]

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

The citizens of a nation, have the right to decide who to invite to join them.

This is an universal right.


The way that I as an American do not have any "Right" to move to and live in say, the Bahamas, if the people of that nation do not want me to join them,


is the way that they, the people of the Bahamas do not have the right to move here, if we do not want them to join us.

Unfortunately America was not built on the premise you'd like. Unlike other nations, we are the only country that acknowledges unalienable Rights. Those Rights are given by our Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The earliest court decisions said those Rights are above the reach of government. So, yes, constitutionally, people from foreign countries CAN, constitutionally come here. Unalienable has a meaning when the founders signed the Declaration of Independence, there were no American citizens.

We can regulate the people that come here to some degree; however, the anti-white immigration laws wherein they are killing off the whites sure as Hell will never be the answer. On two points you are siding with the Democrats - you are denying that unalienable Rights exist and that who the government grants the rest of the government granted "rights" are given by a government God. That is just the way it is. You know, I studied law, worked in immigration law for six years at one time and never got the right to understand the way those laws work. You're taking a giant shit on your Rights and THAT is what drove me out of the legal field. BTW, I spent thousands of unpaid hours helping our people and learning this stuff. I can't get the right wing to take an hour to study the concept of unalienable Rights.

I promise you with all I hold near and dear to enjoy the last years of Trump because the precedents you're creating will be used against you and we will have NO RIGHTS in two more election cycles. The right will have signed their own death warrant. But, I don't want to fight you over it any longer. You sound like you won more federal cases than I did.

1. It does not matter that other nations were not built on the concept of unalienable rights. The act of entering and joining another group, is not one of those unalienable rights. The Bahamas are not denying me my RIGHT to go live there, because I do not have the right to go live there. I could ASK them, if I could come live with them. They could decide and I would respect their decision, because I am a good neighbor of the people of the Bahamas.


2. I am not denying that unalienable right exists. I am disagreeing with you, on one "right" you claim to be a right.

3. The Left does not and has never needed anything from me to trample my rights. Even if I did not give them the "precedents" you claim I am giving them, when they get their lib Court, they will/would find them immediately. And by "find" I mean just make up out of lies and bs.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

FOR THE RECORD: I have made no gaffes and errors on this thread. That is why Porter Rockwell has not ‘documented’ a single gaffe or error on my part.

 

[Correll]

FOR THE RECORD: I have made no gaffes and errors on this thread. That is why Porter Rockwell has not ‘documented’ a single gaffe or error on my part.

Buddy. You, by being just about the only lib who is sincere in his beliefs, and having the balls to stay and meet a real challenge to your beliefs,


became in this limited context the spokesman for your side.


And all credit to you for being serious in your attempt,


you were crushed like a bug, because you could not honestly face the crux of the issue,



which is that you lefties and Rockwell are in agreement on the Founding of the nation,

and what that means.


YOu are revealing the weakness of your side's inability to make it's case, based on the merit of your agenda.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Porter Rockwell , I have never seen anyone document the gaffes and errors of another as comprehensively as you did above. This begs the question of why you would waste so much of your time on someone so underserving of it, beginning with his ignorant name NotfooledbyW

Leftists that hateful belong on your Ignore List for very good reasons. I'll just give you a few:

Go from the presence of a foolish man. - The Holy Bible

A lion does not turn around when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb

If you stop to throw a rock at every dog that barks, you'll never get to your destination. - Winston Churchill

God bless you and increase your territory, my Friend.

When I started this thread, I had to break the opening into two parts, anticipating that we would discuss this a little at a time. Then I found myself having my thread derailed by one, angry little communist (at least that's what his avatar looks like.)

Not only did my critics avoid reading the first two posts, they began commenting out of ignorance, but the resident troll... In the first 805 posts, nearly half were by him, about him, or my having to reply to vicious attacks. Now he's claiming he's perfect. He taught me to never talk - even in a general conversation and quote someone without it being mainstream fodder and / or backed by multiple sources.

If he continues on, I may go through the notes I took when I went through this and give you some of his greatest whoppers. The deal about Thomas Jefferson and the troll calling me a liar ended it. I'm going to do this thread and if we have to totally destroy the troll's credibility, so be it. This thread has become a part time job and only ONE reply had anything to do with the first two posts so far.

Thank you and God Bless

 

[Correll]

Porter Rockwell , I have never seen anyone document the gaffes and errors of another as comprehensively as you did above. This begs the question of why you would waste so much of your time on someone so underserving of it, beginning with his ignorant name NotfooledbyW

Leftists that hateful belong on your Ignore List for very good reasons. I'll just give you a few:

Go from the presence of a foolish man. - The Holy Bible

A lion does not turn around when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb

If you stop to throw a rock at every dog that barks, you'll never get to your destination. - Winston Churchill

God bless you and increase your territory, my Friend.

When I started this thread, I had to break the opening into two parts, anticipating that we would discuss this a little at a time. Then I found myself having my thread derailed by one, angry little communist (at least that's what his avatar looks like.)

Not only did my critics avoid reading the first two posts, they began commenting out of ignorance, but the resident troll... In the first 805 posts, nearly half were by him, about him, or my having to reply to vicious attacks. Now he's claiming he's perfect. He taught me to never talk - even in a general conversation and quote someone without it being mainstream fodder and / or backed by multiple sources.

If he continues on, I may go through the notes I took when I went through this and give you some of his greatest whoppers. The deal about Thomas Jefferson and the troll calling me a liar ended it. I'm going to do this thread and if we have to totally destroy the troll's credibility, so be it. This thread has become a part time job and only ONE reply had anything to do with the first two posts so far.

Thank you and God Bless

Agreed. The libs in this thread have been very disappointing, and the limited amount of revealing discussion, has more to do with the inability of the site's liberals to engage in real debate.


The disappointment in this thread, is about them, not about Rockwell.

 

[BreezeWood]

For non citizens, being here is a privilege. If they are here, their children will be born here and they will be citizens and get all those benefits, in a generation anyways.

Partially true, but only because the average American will not examine the historical facts. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. Most people think that the immigration issue is what drives me to oppose the enforcement of that travesty, but it certainly is not.

Let's take this issue:

Even in a very liberal rendering of the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When those words were penned, the people were already overwhelmingly Christian, so nobody needed to establish a religion. Jews financed the War of Independence, invested in the creation of the Republic, etc. but they were never citizens. It didn't stop them from participating in the free market. The point is Congress (the federal Congress) could not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That Amendment could not be construed to impact what already existed; it had NO bearing on the states; it did not limit the people.

So, what happened that allowed the federal government to violate the First Amendment, as intended, and impose a mythical "separation of church and state" on the states (i.e. as in matters like education and marriage) ? That would be the 14th Amendment, of course. Oh yeah, there is a separation of church and state... just as fairies and Santa Claus, along with pro-wrestling are real. The government decides what constitutes a church, where they may assemble to worship, and what tenets of faith to follow lest they lose their non profit status. AND, if my critics on this thread had their way, THEY think they get to determine what constitutes a Christian and what doesn't! All of that exists, along with birthright citizenship due to the 14th Amendment.

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does.

- that is the premise of the christian influence is shaping the u s constitution - no mention of equality.

it has been pointed out to you already, there is no mention of equality rights in the u s constitution - whatever you claim as founding the nation, states rights the declaration of independence have no bearing on the final document that is the source for your thread and the founding of the nation, the u s constitution as written -

it was the christian influence that removed inalienable rights, equality from the constitution to institutionalize slavery, misogyny etc. after the military victory they had fought for and was used against those believing in equality after their sacrifices.

the same as the christian "religion" using the 1st century events to institutionalize the same misgivings accomplished by someone else's sacrifices. porter rockwell - the slanderer.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Partially true, but only because the average American will not examine the historical facts. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. Most people think that the immigration issue is what drives me to oppose the enforcement of that travesty, but it certainly is not.

Let's take this issue:

Even in a very liberal rendering of the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When those words were penned, the people were already overwhelmingly Christian, so nobody needed to establish a religion. Jews financed the War of Independence, invested in the creation of the Republic, etc. but they were never citizens. It didn't stop them from participating in the free market. The point is Congress (the federal Congress) could not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That Amendment could not be construed to impact what already existed; it had NO bearing on the states; it did not limit the people.

So, what happened that allowed the federal government to violate the First Amendment, as intended, and impose a mythical "separation of church and state" on the states (i.e. as in matters like education and marriage) ? That would be the 14th Amendment, of course. Oh yeah, there is a separation of church and state... just as fairies and Santa Claus, along with pro-wrestling are real. The government decides what constitutes a church, where they may assemble to worship, and what tenets of faith to follow lest they lose their non profit status. AND, if my critics on this thread had their way, THEY think they get to determine what constitutes a Christian and what doesn't! All of that exists, along with birthright citizenship due to the 14th Amendment.

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

The citizens of a nation, have the right to decide who to invite to join them.

This is an universal right.


The way that I as an American do not have any "Right" to move to and live in say, the Bahamas, if the people of that nation do not want me to join them,


is the way that they, the people of the Bahamas do not have the right to move here, if we do not want them to join us.

You are conflating two things:

Who a nation accepts as citizens is a privilege
Liberty is an unalienable Right.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"He (King George) has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."

Now, the best counter to that is:

"He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored 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."

So, on one hand, immigration was a good thing - something we should be doing. And if you look at the language aimed at the Indians, they sound like subhumans not fit to wear the title of human being. How do we get to the end of this quagmire?

If you want to accept the Democrats premise, then you can throw up your hands and let this country be taken over "legally" as you erroneously call it. The other way is to use the right strategies to get what you want. The way you're going about it is for the courts to declare that your Rights are not absolute. So, with the wrong government in charge, and you endorsing Democrat passed statutes, then they come after your Rights.

By insuring the Rights of others, I'm protecting my own Rights. If unalienable rights become privileges, then the government takes what you have with your consent. If you retain your Rights, exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress, you retain the right to resist an unconstitutional government. You can then, legitimately and morally resort to extraordinary actions to protect and preserve your Rights.

There is one thing that I'm going to tell you and you cannot argue around it. Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, the United States passed the first Naturalization Law as per the Constitution. It limited citizenship to white freemen. The first post has a link that will explain the WHY. Up until 1875 when the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench, only whites could be citizens, but people from all over the world were coming here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. Everybody has the Right to pursue Happiness, but they are not guaranteed Happiness. Without the welfare, Socialist Security, etc. we don't really have a Dept. of Happiness. Do you have enough critical thinking skills to read between the lines?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Partially true, but only because the average American will not examine the historical facts. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. Most people think that the immigration issue is what drives me to oppose the enforcement of that travesty, but it certainly is not.

Let's take this issue:

Even in a very liberal rendering of the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When those words were penned, the people were already overwhelmingly Christian, so nobody needed to establish a religion. Jews financed the War of Independence, invested in the creation of the Republic, etc. but they were never citizens. It didn't stop them from participating in the free market. The point is Congress (the federal Congress) could not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That Amendment could not be construed to impact what already existed; it had NO bearing on the states; it did not limit the people.

So, what happened that allowed the federal government to violate the First Amendment, as intended, and impose a mythical "separation of church and state" on the states (i.e. as in matters like education and marriage) ? That would be the 14th Amendment, of course. Oh yeah, there is a separation of church and state... just as fairies and Santa Claus, along with pro-wrestling are real. The government decides what constitutes a church, where they may assemble to worship, and what tenets of faith to follow lest they lose their non profit status. AND, if my critics on this thread had their way, THEY think they get to determine what constitutes a Christian and what doesn't! All of that exists, along with birthright citizenship due to the 14th Amendment.

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does.

- that is the premise of the christian influence is shaping the u s constitution - no mention of equality.

it has been pointed out to you already, there is no mention of equality rights in the u s constitution - whatever you claim as founding the nation, states rights the declaration of independence have no bearing on the final document that is the source for your thread and the founding of the nation, the u s constitution as written -

it was the christian influence that removed inalienable rights, equality from the constitution to institutionalize slavery, misogyny etc. after the military victory they had fought for and was used against those believing in equality after their sacrifices.

the same as the christian "religion" using the 1st century events to institutionalize the same misgivings accomplished by someone else's sacrifices. porter rockwell - the slanderer.

Name calling works every time. The original Constitution of the United States does not seek to promise equality to all. Hang with me for a moment:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Preamble to the United States Constitution)

"The Congress shall have Power To ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the Constitution

"United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26,1790

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the
limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof "

The Constitution was in its complete form and George Washington became our first president in April of 1789. The first Naturalization Act followed less than a year later. That is the relevant part above.

Now, if you care to know what that means, go back and read post # 1 and access / READ the links. Securing the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (offspring, children) and only whites could become citizens meant one thing. Go to post # 1 and the answer is given... If you know how to click on a link or two.

 

[Correll]

Partially true, but only because the average American will not examine the historical facts. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. Most people think that the immigration issue is what drives me to oppose the enforcement of that travesty, but it certainly is not.

Let's take this issue:

Even in a very liberal rendering of the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When those words were penned, the people were already overwhelmingly Christian, so nobody needed to establish a religion. Jews financed the War of Independence, invested in the creation of the Republic, etc. but they were never citizens. It didn't stop them from participating in the free market. The point is Congress (the federal Congress) could not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That Amendment could not be construed to impact what already existed; it had NO bearing on the states; it did not limit the people.

So, what happened that allowed the federal government to violate the First Amendment, as intended, and impose a mythical "separation of church and state" on the states (i.e. as in matters like education and marriage) ? That would be the 14th Amendment, of course. Oh yeah, there is a separation of church and state... just as fairies and Santa Claus, along with pro-wrestling are real. The government decides what constitutes a church, where they may assemble to worship, and what tenets of faith to follow lest they lose their non profit status. AND, if my critics on this thread had their way, THEY think they get to determine what constitutes a Christian and what doesn't! All of that exists, along with birthright citizenship due to the 14th Amendment.

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does.

- that is the premise of the christian influence is shaping the u s constitution - no mention of equality.

it has been pointed out to you already, there is no mention of equality rights in the u s constitution - whatever you claim as founding the nation, states rights the declaration of independence have no bearing on the final document that is the source for your thread and the founding of the nation, the u s constitution as written -

it was the christian influence that removed inalienable rights, equality from the constitution to institutionalize slavery, misogyny etc. after the military victory they had fought for and was used against those believing in equality after their sacrifices.

the same as the christian "religion" using the 1st century events to institutionalize the same misgivings accomplished by someone else's sacrifices. porter rockwell - the slanderer.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?