Are You a White Nationalist or Hispanic nationalist or........

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you want a wall to preserve the country you love???

The country I love, became the country I love over the last 250 years without a wall.

??? Insanity, it became country you love without Corona virus. Please think before

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nope. Mexican culture is no better or worse than MY culture. [/QUOTE]

So 50 million illiterate Gambians are fine because all cultures are the same to a libcommie?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the original idea was sovereign states coming together to form a more perfect union for good reason- not the excuses used today to divide and conquer to keep subservient to the District of Criminals-

Yes!!!! If Founders had said after Convention that state power might be compromised by the new Constitution not one state would have ratified the Constitution.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem is that citizens can not question this anymore. For the howls of injustice and hate comes up

Yes our libcommie Democrats accuse you of racism at the drop of a hat, and when you say you want to preserve European White culture. They feel so guilty about past injustices that they want to atone for it by destroying our country. Its pure insanity!.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Mexican, as well as Greek, Irish, Jewish, African, and various Asian cultures are ALL part of my culture as well.

That Coke commercial went off the air in 1971. Please grow up.

I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing (In Perfect Harmony ...
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › I'd_Like_to_Teach_the_World_to_Sing_(I...
"I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing (In Perfect Harmony)" is a pop song that originated as the jingle "Buy the World a Coke" in the groundbreaking 1971 "Hilltop" television commercial for Coca-Cola and sung by The Hillside Singers. "Buy the World a Coke" was produced by Billy Davis and portrayed a positive ... In 2006, the song was used again in a Coca-Cola commercial in the ...
‎The Hillside Singers · ‎Bill Backer · ‎McCann · ‎The New Seekers

 

[fncceo]

So you want a wall to preserve the country you love???

The country I love, became the country I love over the last 250 years without a wall.

??? Insanity, it became country you love without Corona virus. Please think before

You're afraid of the flu?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're afraid of the flu?

I'm afraid you lack ability to know if you're White nationalist or Hispanic nationalist.

 

[MaryL]

I'm a white nationalist. Us white nationalists stopped Hitler. So get over it. Our our white proud nationalistic fathers put a boot up the fascists dictators rectum. Not diversity or open borders. White Men protecting their homelands.

 

[MaryL]

avoiding the issue for fear Democrats will call you racist? If you avoid the issue you are a Hispanic nationalist by default as cunning and deceitful Democrats use your fear to transform our country into a libcommie Hispanic country.

Racism is the new "wolf". Jesse Smollett, the boy that cried racism a few to many times. Racism this, racism THAT. I'd rather have competency than "diversity" any day of the week.

 

[MaryL]

My father was a white male nationalist and YES, Virginia, white nationalism wasn't the problem. It was a demagogue that manipulated the political zeitgeist. NOBODY is doing THAT now...democrats Never do that, do they?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm a white nationalist. Us white nationalists stopped Hitler. So get over it. Our our white proud nationalistic fathers put a boot up the fascists dictators rectum. Not diversity or open borders. White Men protecting their homelands.

It seems the liberals want us to prove we are not racists, and to make up for past racism, by turning our country over to Hispanics. Seems like a silly mistake given that our culture really created civilization on earth and is still the last best hope for freedom on earth.

 

[MaryL]

Spain. They where major movers of imperialism and slavery. Spanish is THE language of imperialism. Just as much as English. I am just a little pissed off when Mexicans that violated international immigration law make this about immigration fairness, that's EXACTLY whats its about. I've known people from Lithuanian or England that immigrated legally, followed the rules just fine.

 

[dblack]

avoiding the issue for fear Democrats will call you racist? If you avoid the issue you are a Hispanic nationalist by default as cunning and deceitful Democrats use your fear to transform our country into a libcommie Hispanic country.

Nationalism is a refuge for small people, hoping to associate themselves with something larger.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

On 19 April 1775 the colonists went to war against King George. That war lasted until 3 September 1783 The United States Congress of the Confederation ratified the Treaty of Paris on 14 January 1784. The War of Independence was fought to establish Liberty for all men. There were no citizens of the United States nor would they be contemplated for several more years.

The new government was set to begin in 1789; the Bill of Rights was adopted on 15 December 1791. On 26 March 1790 Congress passed the first naturalization law establishing the qualifications for citizenship. The law reads as follows:

"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"

Nationality Act of 1790 - Immigration History

This was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization and establish standards and procedures by which immigrants became US citizens. In this early version, Congress limited this important right to “free white persons.”

immigrationhistory.org

That law fulfilled the only duty the federal government has in relation to foreigners by way of the Constitution (Article I Section 8) The Liberty of all people was regulated by the states. Citizenship was governed by federal law.

Congress had no constitutional jurisdiction over Liberty nor who a state let come and go within its borders. This changed after all the founders and framers of the Constitution were dead and buried. It came in the form of a United States Supreme Court decision in 1875 (Chy Lung v. Freeman) gave Congress plenary powers over all aspect of foreigners. The big problem here is that the United States Constitution has no provision for allowing the United States Supreme Court to grant to any other branch of government any powers. It is at this point that those who think one must be a citizen in order to have Rights becomes convoluted.

The privileges of citizenship: the privilege of voting, holding public office, receiving welfare, etc. are NOT unalienable Rights. We use the term "rights" and it can mean a grant or permission from government. But, unalienable Rights are God given, inherent, natural, absolute, irrevocable Rights that the government neither grants or creates. Therefore, like it or not, if you claim to be any kind of nationalist, you have to accept that premise or be a poseur. No man can serve two masters.

Ah, but what about those "open borders" and foreigners taking over? That is a result of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment did NOT make blacks and whites equal. The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights. So, now the government claims to be the grantor of your rights. It's a difficult concept to wrap your head around, but if you rescind the 14th Amendment, only whites can be citizens (check out the Dred Scott v. Sanford ruling by the United States Supreme Court) Now, that is real constitutionalist thinking. IF you accept the 14th Amendment, it guarantees the equal protection of the laws, to ALL PERSONS so there is no such thing as an "illegal alien." The 14th Amendment guarantees to every person the equal protection of the laws. So, you cannot criminalize Liberty and you cannot deny to any foreigner here the equal protection of the laws. If the state government chooses to accept foreigners and you don't like it, you can boycott that state, lobby the feds not to give those states any federal money that would benefit non-citizen foreigners, but so long as the 14th Amendment exists, that legal v. illegal argument is irrelevant - unless you don't give a damn about your own Rights. If you understood what is at stake and had to choose between one or the other, what would you really be? That crap that we are only going to dole out rights to "legal citizens" is a bastardized form of government that jeopardizes YOUR Rights (if you believe you should have the Rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights) OR you ultimately turn America over to the third world (as is being done) if you support the 14th Amendment.

 

[dblack]

If you understood what is at stake and had to choose between one or the other, what would you really be? That crap that we are only going to dole out rights to "legal citizens" is a bastardized form of government that jeopardizes YOUR Rights (if you believe you should have the Rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights) OR you ultimately turn America over to the third world (as is being done) if you support the 14th Amendment.

my bolding

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I agree with the bolded portion, but I'm not sure what you're getting at overall. Do you support the 14th amendment?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If you understood what is at stake and had to choose between one or the other, what would you really be? That crap that we are only going to dole out rights to "legal citizens" is a bastardized form of government that jeopardizes YOUR Rights (if you believe you should have the Rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights) OR you ultimately turn America over to the third world (as is being done) if you support the 14th Amendment.

my bolding

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I agree with the bolded portion, but I'm not sure what you're getting at overall. Do you support the 14th amendment?

I absolutely do not support the 14th Amendment. It was illegally ratified in that proper procedures were not met AND it didn't meet constitutional muster there, BUT MOST OF ALL - and this is imperative to understand (Reader's Digest version):

1) The 14th Amendment was passed on the pretext of granting equality to blacks. In reality it created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens

2) Preamble Citizens retained their God given, unalienable, natural, inherent, irrevocable, and absolute Rights; 14th Amendment citizens were granted their "rights" by way of the 14th Amendment - government granted rights (actually permission from the state)

3) Then the federal government used a host of devices to bring everybody under the purview of the 14th Amendment - from the income tax, forward

4) The next step involved removing the word unalienable from the legal lexicon. It's not even defined in modern law dictionaries. They replaced it with a synonym - "inalienable."

Unalienable is unalienable. See # 2. Inalienable rights CAN be aliened (taken) by virtue of the 14th Amendment - all the government has to do is give you Due Process. THAT is how they declared that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, despite the clear language in that Amendment. Now, to prove it's all about the 14th Amendment, let's move to another gun control case. Here is some reasoning:

"The crucial question, however, was whether the Second Amendment is applicable to the states and their political subdivisions. Citing “selective incorporation,” the Supreme Court’s gradual application to the states of most of the protections of the Bill of Rights through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which prohibits the states from denying life, liberty, or property without due process of law), the plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment is applicable through that clause as well as through the amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause (which forbids the states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States)."

McDonald v. City of Chicago | Summary, Decision, History, & Facts | Britannica

McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’ applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

www.britannica.com

Let's dispense with legal mumbo jumbo. The Second Amendment shouldn't have a damn thing to do with the14th Amendment. So, I'm not a conspiracy nutcase. The removal of the word unalienable from the legal lexicon was no mistake. In case law, the courts have ruled that states CAN take your Rights via the 14th Amendment. Based on that Amendment, they've ruled that it is not a crime for undocumented foreigners to be in the United States without papers; your formerly unalienable Rights can be limited and ignored in some circumstances. Social liberals might be incensed, but the truth is the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution was a contract between we ,the people and that entity called government. That terminology and the Posterity mentioned in the Preamble consisted of the white race. See Dred Scott v Sanford.

As for me, I choose to have my unalienable Rights left intact, acknowledge the foreigners their Liberty and call it a day. But doesn't that mean the foreigners will flood our borders? The answer is no, and if you want it I can explain to you why. Just don't want to do a lot of typing here that gets ignored. After many years of explaining this, you are the first to ask for an explanation. That means you are one of a few who are looking for the truth. I can appreciate that... even if you end up disagreeing with my decision based on the facts.

 

[bluzman61]

I'm white, I love my country and am PROUD of it. Am I racist? Not a chance.

So you want a wall to preserve the country you love???

Yep, A nice 100 mile wall would be nice. It would certainly help keep the ILLEGAL riffraff out of my country.

 

[dblack]

If you understood what is at stake and had to choose between one or the other, what would you really be? That crap that we are only going to dole out rights to "legal citizens" is a bastardized form of government that jeopardizes YOUR Rights (if you believe you should have the Rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights) OR you ultimately turn America over to the third world (as is being done) if you support the 14th Amendment.

my bolding

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I agree with the bolded portion, but I'm not sure what you're getting at overall. Do you support the 14th amendment?

I absolutely do not support the 14th Amendment. It was illegally ratified in that proper procedures were not met AND it didn't meet constitutional muster there, BUT MOST OF ALL - and this is imperative to understand (Reader's Digest version):

1) The 14th Amendment was passed on the pretext of granting equality to blacks. In reality it created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens

2) Preamble Citizens retained their God given, unalienable, natural, inherent, irrevocable, and absolute Rights; 14th Amendment citizens were granted their "rights" by way of the 14th Amendment - government granted rights (actually permission from the state)

3) Then the federal government used a host of devices to bring everybody under the purview of the 14th Amendment - from the income tax, forward

4) The next step involved removing the word unalienable from the legal lexicon. It's not even defined in modern law dictionaries. They replaced it with a synonym - "inalienable."

Unalienable is unalienable. See # 2. Inalienable rights CAN be aliened (taken) by virtue of the 14th Amendment - all the government has to do is give you Due Process. THAT is how they declared that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, despite the clear language in that Amendment. Now, to prove it's all about the 14th Amendment, let's move to another gun control case. Here is some reasoning:

"The crucial question, however, was whether the Second Amendment is applicable to the states and their political subdivisions. Citing “selective incorporation,” the Supreme Court’s gradual application to the states of most of the protections of the Bill of Rights through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which prohibits the states from denying life, liberty, or property without due process of law), the plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment is applicable through that clause as well as through the amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause (which forbids the states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States)."

McDonald v. City of Chicago | Summary, Decision, History, & Facts | Britannica

McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’ applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

www.britannica.com

Let's dispense with legal mumbo jumbo. The Second Amendment shouldn't have a damn thing to do with the14th Amendment. So, I'm not a conspiracy nutcase. The removal of the word unalienable from the legal lexicon was no mistake. In case law, the courts have ruled that states CAN take your Rights via the 14th Amendment. Based on that Amendment, they've ruled that it is not a crime for undocumented foreigners to be in the United States without papers; your formerly unalienable Rights can be limited and ignored in some circumstances. Social liberals might be incensed, but the truth is the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution was a contract between we ,the people and that entity called government. That terminology and the Posterity mentioned in the Preamble consisted of the white race. See Dred Scott v Sanford.

As for me, I choose to have my unalienable Rights left intact, acknowledge the foreigners their Liberty and call it a day. But doesn't that mean the foreigners will flood our borders? The answer is no, and if you want it I can explain to you why. Just don't want to do a lot of typing here that gets ignored. After many years of explaining this, you are the first to ask for an explanation. That means you are one of a few who are looking for the truth. I can appreciate that... even if you end up disagreeing with my decision based on the facts.

Oh, ok. Nevermind.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The 14th Amendment did NOT make blacks and whites equal

In what respect?

 

[toobfreak]

avoiding the issue for fear Democrats will call you racist? If you avoid the issue you are a Hispanic nationalist by default as cunning and deceitful Democrats use your fear to transform our country into a libcommie Hispanic country.

Why can't you just be a NATIONALIST! A patriot?
What is with all the race labels?
Ever hear of a White Globalist? Why are they all just "globalists?"

So tired of the constant divisiveness in order to try to vilify people just for being for their country first over others while the rest of the world freely puts their countries over ours first as well.