- Banned
- #261
I was paid to.
An Informal Debate on Race Relations in the United States Including Its History
- Thread starter NewsVine_Mariyam
- Start date
- Status
- Banned
- #262
Civility is overrated.
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,614
- 2,220
I've seen it at work, too. Not so sure I agree about IM, though.
- Banned
- #264
It's better than being dead.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,689
- 107,535
- 3,645
Let's keep going.
In standing up to King George, the colonists presented to him the Declaration of Independence and subsequently we went to war (the War of Independence) and thirteen years later, the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. In the Constitution, the Americans began to wage a political war against slavery. The Constitution required:
"Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Article I Section 9
" In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported legally into the United States."
So, in 1807 the newly formed United States began the process of dismantling slavery.
(If whites had really wanted to end slavery, they would have ended it by decree in 1807. So while they could no longer import slaves by written decree, slaves still were shipped here and slaves we made to breed in order to increase the number of slaves.)
" The 1807 law ending the importation of slaves did nothing to stop the buying and selling of slaves within the United States."
/Slave-ship-diagram-3000-3x2gty-57ef07733df78c690f684a33.jpg)
www.thoughtco.com
I do want to say something that is honest and blunt here. There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits slavery. So, it posed no moral issue for the colonists from that perspective. OTOH, we had entered the age where everything was being questioned and slavery was on the minds of a lot of people. But, being wholly objective, the people of the United States have been brainwashed to believe that they are now "Gentiles" (goyim - meaning non human, cattle, heathen) and the Jews are God's chosen people. So, we give the Israelis everything they want from toothpicks to intercontinental ballistic missiles. NOBODY seems to have an issue with displacing native people in the Middle East to make way for the self determination of Jews laying a false claim to the land... and the liberals will tell you about the mythical "separation of church and state." I don't see the problem with white people seeking the Right of their own homeland and the Right of self determination. If we left the Middle East, quit guaranteeing the Israelis a lifestyle and minded our own business, I could not make a case for the whites having their own homeland....
But, our intentions were to have a homeland for the whites. The Constitution of the United States begins with a preamble. It reads:
"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."
I bolded that part about "secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" for a reason. The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States were written by white men appealing to a white Christian populace. In the Constitution of the United States, the framers gave Congress one and only ONE area of jurisdiction relative to foreigners. In Article I Section 8 of the Constitution:
"Congress shall the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Within months of the ratification of the Constitution, Congress fulfilled that duty:
"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..."
Of course, people on all sides of the political spectrum cannot fathom the meaning of what I just said. People conflate unalienable Rights of man with the benefits of citizenship as contemplated in the Constitution as originally written and intended. Who came and went within a state was a state's right. Slavery was a state's right. Today, the right cannot understand that concept and demand the federal government rely on unconstitutional laws to deal with foreigners. It is within the state's purview and NOT in federal jurisdiction. As evidence of that, although from our inception, non-whites could not become citizens, they were able to go most anywhere they wanted and engage in free market enterprise, subject to the state laws where they were.
I would only take up a really lot of bandwidth to explain this and it's been done by a legal mind far superior to mine. Judge Roger Taney laid out the history in his majority opinion in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision (the ruling that inspired the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.) Taney wrote approximately 20 to 25 pages of laws that confirm what I've posted in this posting. I've not known anyone to actually read that ruling, but I continue to post a link to it just in case you want to see whether I am factually right or not:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393
Here is a little excerpt from Taney's ruling:
"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.
27
It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted."
Taney is despised today for doing his job. He could not legislate and he didn't try to. He didn't get to play God and decide if the intent was acceptable or not. He merely upheld the law in spite of any political persuasion he had either way.
All of this is directly out of the christian identity playbook. Since the constitution can be amended the claim being made is invalid.
Definition of unalienable
: impossible to take away or give up :
According to Rockwell these rights are given by god. That means every human has these rights and that includes the right to live where they chose. This claim of a white homeland is debunked by the existence of the European continent which was the white homeland.
Justice Taneys opinion was overturned, the 14th amendment was not illegally ratified as today all 50 states have ratified the amendment. So Rockwell is not repeating facts. This is racist nonsense promoted by white supremacists and that's all it is.
In standing up to King George, the colonists presented to him the Declaration of Independence and subsequently we went to war (the War of Independence) and thirteen years later, the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. In the Constitution, the Americans began to wage a political war against slavery. The Constitution required:
"Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Article I Section 9
" In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported legally into the United States."
So, in 1807 the newly formed United States began the process of dismantling slavery.
(If whites had really wanted to end slavery, they would have ended it by decree in 1807. So while they could no longer import slaves by written decree, slaves still were shipped here and slaves we made to breed in order to increase the number of slaves.)
" The 1807 law ending the importation of slaves did nothing to stop the buying and selling of slaves within the United States."
How an 1807 Law Banned the Importation of Enslaved People to America
An 1807 law banned the importation of enslaved people to America, but did nothing to slow the economy based on enslavement.
I do want to say something that is honest and blunt here. There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits slavery. So, it posed no moral issue for the colonists from that perspective. OTOH, we had entered the age where everything was being questioned and slavery was on the minds of a lot of people. But, being wholly objective, the people of the United States have been brainwashed to believe that they are now "Gentiles" (goyim - meaning non human, cattle, heathen) and the Jews are God's chosen people. So, we give the Israelis everything they want from toothpicks to intercontinental ballistic missiles. NOBODY seems to have an issue with displacing native people in the Middle East to make way for the self determination of Jews laying a false claim to the land... and the liberals will tell you about the mythical "separation of church and state." I don't see the problem with white people seeking the Right of their own homeland and the Right of self determination. If we left the Middle East, quit guaranteeing the Israelis a lifestyle and minded our own business, I could not make a case for the whites having their own homeland....
But, our intentions were to have a homeland for the whites. The Constitution of the United States begins with a preamble. It reads:
"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."
I bolded that part about "secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" for a reason. The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States were written by white men appealing to a white Christian populace. In the Constitution of the United States, the framers gave Congress one and only ONE area of jurisdiction relative to foreigners. In Article I Section 8 of the Constitution:
"Congress shall the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Within months of the ratification of the Constitution, Congress fulfilled that duty:
"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..."
Of course, people on all sides of the political spectrum cannot fathom the meaning of what I just said. People conflate unalienable Rights of man with the benefits of citizenship as contemplated in the Constitution as originally written and intended. Who came and went within a state was a state's right. Slavery was a state's right. Today, the right cannot understand that concept and demand the federal government rely on unconstitutional laws to deal with foreigners. It is within the state's purview and NOT in federal jurisdiction. As evidence of that, although from our inception, non-whites could not become citizens, they were able to go most anywhere they wanted and engage in free market enterprise, subject to the state laws where they were.
I would only take up a really lot of bandwidth to explain this and it's been done by a legal mind far superior to mine. Judge Roger Taney laid out the history in his majority opinion in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision (the ruling that inspired the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.) Taney wrote approximately 20 to 25 pages of laws that confirm what I've posted in this posting. I've not known anyone to actually read that ruling, but I continue to post a link to it just in case you want to see whether I am factually right or not:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393
Here is a little excerpt from Taney's ruling:
"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.
27
It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted."
Taney is despised today for doing his job. He could not legislate and he didn't try to. He didn't get to play God and decide if the intent was acceptable or not. He merely upheld the law in spite of any political persuasion he had either way.
All of this is directly out of the christian identity playbook. Since the constitution can be amended the claim being made is invalid.
Definition of unalienable
: impossible to take away or give up :
According to Rockwell these rights are given by god. That means every human has these rights and that includes the right to live where they chose. This claim of a white homeland is debunked by the existence of the European continent which was the white homeland.
Justice Taneys opinion was overturned, the 14th amendment was not illegally ratified as today all 50 states have ratified the amendment. So Rockwell is not repeating facts. This is racist nonsense promoted by white supremacists and that's all it is.
NewsVine_Mariyam
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #266
LOL, that's not what I said or meant
I made a mistake for which I apologized lol, k?
NewsVine_Mariyam
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #267
I guess it depends on your perspective.
- Banned
- #268
Lol, I just had to give you a hard time for that one.LOL, that's not what I said or meant
I made a mistake for which I apologized lol, k?
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,689
- 107,535
- 3,645
I retired from a position of Executive Director. I left power and did so gladly. Freyasman doesn't have a clue about me and he dislikes me because I won't shut up and let the racists here spend all day denigrating everything blacks do. When I see thread where whites are denigrating us for what we eat, I don't see this guy attacking any of those people.
NewsVine_Mariyam
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #270
I don't understand why the term "identity" is offensive however if I can I will ask IM2 to refrain for addressing you as such. I don't want you to give up because of one person. None of us are in complete agreement on anything but speaking for myself, I'm willing to listen to the complaints to see if I can understand things a bit better and maybe some of you can understand our perspective a bit better.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,689
- 107,535
- 3,645
I've stood in front of city councils, I've been on TV and radio. I have written op eds and spoke on college campuses. If you dared to spit on me, your life will change immediately.
NewsVine_Mariyam
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #272
I know, I earned it lol
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,689
- 107,535
- 3,645
I won't give in to this mans whining about being called a member of Christan identity. He has shown everyone here that is what he is. He believes that whites are the Israelites and that whites were sent here to establish America as the New Jerusalem. He has written that and I will not be tone policed by a racist.
Porter and IM2....you seem to be two accomplished individuals...can you recognize that in each other and move beyond messageboard personas?
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,614
- 2,220
Cherry picking facts, more like. And throwing in a zinger here and there, like the 14th being illegal.
There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
by
David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957
by
David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957
A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.
Even if the three states still under "reconstruction" at the time (Virginia, Mississippi and Texas) are not counted, it still required 26. So I wonder how they worked around that?
.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,689
- 107,535
- 3,645
I spoke the truth in response to what he posted.
NewsVine_Mariyam
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #278
I'm confused. I thought the original settler came over on the Mayflower to escape religious perspecution in England, that religion was mandated by the crown as the Church of England who I thought were Christians and I thought Israelis or Israelites are Jewish? No?
NewsVine_Mariyam
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #279
You were a mercenary?
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,614
- 2,220
So much is getting interesting, but I have an early morning tomorrow and I have to go.
Porter, maybe you can explain that comment about the 14th amendment blowing up the Bill of Rights and making us all slaves another time.
IM, I want to know how they got around only 21 states ratifying the 14th.
Mariyam, it's been an interesting day.
Night, all.
Porter, maybe you can explain that comment about the 14th amendment blowing up the Bill of Rights and making us all slaves another time.
IM, I want to know how they got around only 21 states ratifying the 14th.
Mariyam, it's been an interesting day.
Night, all.
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
SHOCK Report: The United Nations Is Now On The Brink Of Financial Collapse- Started by RhodyPatriot
- Replies: 28
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
SHOCK Report: The United Nations Is Now On The Brink Of Financial Collapse
- Latest: ThunderKiss1965
