What is White Supremacy?

[katsteve2012]

Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are a disingenuous liar.

You like to throw the word "proof" around. OK. I'll follow suit. Show a shred of proof that any of my numbers are wrong. G'wan. Do it.

You've been asked for "proof" when you have posted outright lies, which is on a regular basis. And as expected, your only "proof" has been to insist that "what you say" is fact.

Your belief that ANYONE who is black that has lived between 1961 and 2020, has benefitted from AA is a perfect example of the kind of trailer trash stupidity and ignorance that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society.

The world will be a better place when you are no longer here.

I don't remember saying that "ANYONE" who's lived between 1961 and 2020 has benefitted from AA.

In any case, your acceptance of AA, and refusal to acknowledge it's victimization, is an example of the kind of selfish, bottom feeding that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society (if you can even be considered part of US society at all).

The world will be a better place when racists like you are no longer here.

Your inability to remember what you stated can be easily corrected by you going back and reading what you posted.

As far as me being racist, you projecting your own tendencies as s defense mechanism is ineffective in you making a credible point.

1. Well, by not posting a reference location to this alleged "ANYONE" post, you are thus unable to establish that any such post exists.

2. As far as you being racist, you support race-based AA. Case closed.

No case to be closed.

1.You are definately senile. You have clearly implied that anyone black that has lived between 1961 and 2020 have benefitted from AA.

I'm not going to spoon feed your own statements to you.

2. You need to look up the definition of racism. You clearly do not understand what it means. Or you could look in the mirror. That might be easier for you.

 

[protectionist]

When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?

In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.

Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ. You can't change history.

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

You are absolutely clueless. Read my posts in this thread and learn.

 

[katsteve2012]

When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?

In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.

Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ. You can't change history.

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

You are absolutely clueless. Read my posts in this thread and learn.

LMAO. If anything, he will "learn" how backward your logic is, and how "clueless" you are.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?

In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.

Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ. You can't change history.

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

You are absolutely clueless. Read my posts in this thread and learn.

I've been reading your posts for a few years now..i know what you are about...and I utterly reject it. You do entertain though..even if the bulk of your talking points are decades old--and have limited relevance in today's world..outside of forums like these.

 

[protectionist]

When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?

In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.

Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ. You can't change history.

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.

Where do you come up with these ludicrous ideas ? If you average out wealth, whereby a very small % of white billionaires would push the mean number up very high, then maybe that could be construed.

That however is not a very meaningful scenario. Going by the general, overall population, blacks are just as well off as whites, and in many locales, are in much better economic condition, due to their greater per capita prevalence in the workforce, especially in govt jobs.

I've already posted the positive examples. Whether you want to check it out for yourself, is up to you. The objective truth is there, in either case.

 

[IM2]

In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.

Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ. You can't change history.

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.

Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.

Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.

AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all. Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man. She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
That, is my world...LOL!

It's going to take money to fix the damage caused by what has been done. But no one seemed to have problems handing Japanese, descendants of confederate soldiers, etc., checks for reparations. But in all studies shown pertaining to AA show that white women have benefitted more, not equal to, women/men of color. When white women became part of the equation, it allowed racist white males to meet the requirements of anti discrimination. Now I don't know what black culture your sister was part of, but the one I grew up in told me that education was the way out. As for your question, the answer is white backlash. As you see in here white men think they are losing out because others are given an equal chance.

 

[IM2]

No protection is in here crying about a job he didn't get in 1970. There are a lot of jobs I couldn't get while white men/women with less education and experience got them. So I helped a former friend start a business from the ground up and utilized the skills whites like no protection wouldn't hire me to use. No protection is the classic whining racist who blames blacks for taking what he thinks he's entitled to.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ. You can't change history.

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.

Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.

Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.

AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all. Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man. She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
That, is my world...LOL!

It's going to take money to fix the damage caused by what has been done. But no one seemed to have problems handing Japanese, descendants of confederate soldiers, etc., checks for reparations. But in all studies shown pertaining to AA show that white women have benefitted more, not equal to, women/men of color. When white women became part of the equation, it allowed racist white males to meet the requirements of anti discrimination. Now I don't know what black culture your sister was part of, but the one I grew up in told me that education was the way out. As for your question, the answer is white backlash. As you see in here white men think they are losing out because others are given an equal chance.

I think my sister was commenting on an issue in her city--she is politically active and it's an issue. As we grew-up together, I can attest that the black culture she was part of--valued education, along with self-sufficiency. But my family was quite the exception..in 1950's and '60's America. We were multi-racial, multi-cultural..and had people in our lives that were ethical, committed and intelligent. So, the ignorance of racism has always taken me by surprise. I get the mechanism....but surely it's a mental defect?

 

[IM2]

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ. You can't change history.

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.

Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.

Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.

AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all. Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man. She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
That, is my world...LOL!

It's going to take money to fix the damage caused by what has been done. But no one seemed to have problems handing Japanese, descendants of confederate soldiers, etc., checks for reparations. But in all studies shown pertaining to AA show that white women have benefitted more, not equal to, women/men of color. When white women became part of the equation, it allowed racist white males to meet the requirements of anti discrimination. Now I don't know what black culture your sister was part of, but the one I grew up in told me that education was the way out. As for your question, the answer is white backlash. As you see in here white men think they are losing out because others are given an equal chance.

I think my sister was commenting on an issue in her city--she is politically active and it's an issue. As we grew-up together, I can attest that the black culture she was part of--valued education, along with self-sufficiency. But my family was quite the exception..in 1950's and '60's America. We were multi-racial, multi-cultural..and had people in our lives that were ethical, committed and intelligent. So, the ignorance of racism has always taken me by surprise. I get the mechanism....but surely it's a mental defect?

I was born in 1961. Sellout has generally meant that when you went to college or got a good position, you suddenly forget you are black. An example of this would be a person like OJ.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No, you just don't like what I'm conveying. There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly. As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them. However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, due to race, I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.

I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost. I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.

And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being trying to appear as an intellectual. I am smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be. Understand? Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than all of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.

Let me make this short for you. These are YOUR words:

"I have not read any further than your first statement above..."

What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views. Everything else is racist. Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant. I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard. It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.

Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.

The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.

How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?

Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.

Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.

PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"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.-"

In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:

(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?

The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.

The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.

When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)

I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Let me make this short for you. These are YOUR words:

"I have not read any further than your first statement above..."

What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views. Everything else is racist. Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant. I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard. It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.

Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.

The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.

How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?

Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.

Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.

PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"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.-"

In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:

(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?

The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.

The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.

When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)

I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

 

[protectionist]

In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.

Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ. You can't change history.

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.

Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.

Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.

AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all. Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man. She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
That, is my world...LOL!

1. There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.

2. Only a tiny % of white women benefit from AA, and ALL white women suffer from it, including the beneficiaries, as I've already repeatedly explained, earlier in the thread.

3. Free postsecondary education is not much of a solution. The City University of New York has had free tuition for 100 years. In the 70s, they added "Open Admissions" cancelling academic requirements.

The failure and dropout rate for blacks was off the charts, and that was with watered down courses, and open book exams . I taught courses there, in this fiasco.

4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.

These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.

The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.

How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?

Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.

Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.

PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"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.-"

In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:

(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?

The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.

The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.

When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)

I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.

 

[protectionist]

Blacks aren't dumb, They know their communities are broken A hardy handshake and a nod.. In the spirit of MLK...

I am black and don't say the black community is broken. I will say that our tax dollars go into developing white communities. You are white and ignore a whole lot of shit whites have done to create the damage. You need to quit talking about Dr. King.

"Where Do We Go From Here?," Address Delivered at the Eleventh Annual SCLC Convention
Author: King, Martin Luther, Jr.
Date: August 16, 1967

"With all the struggle and all the achievements, we must face the fact, however, that the Negro still lives in the basement of the Great Society. He is still at the bottom, despite the few who have penetrated to slightly higher levels. Even where the door has been forced partially open, mobility for the Negro is still sharply restricted. There is often no bottom at which to start, and when there is there's almost no room at the top. In consequence, Negroes are still impoverished aliens in an affluent society. They are too poor even to rise with the society, too impoverished by the ages to be able to ascend by using their own resources. And the Negro did not do this himself; it was done to him."

This might have been true for 1967. It definitely it not true for 2020. In fact, blacks are much better off than whites, because they have good jobs more so than whites.

Want an example ? Easy. Take a walk through a VA hospital in a city like Tampa, with large populations of both blacks and whites ,(and other minorities). Observe dozens of employees. Stay longer and observe hundreds of employees. Count how many whites you see. You can use your fingers to count them.

Blacks in general do not hold "better jobs" than whites in America. That is another outright, blatant fabrication on your part. You are a prolific liar.

I gave a perfect example of the absolute proof that yes, blacks are much better off than whites, with good jobs more so than whites.

Here's 2 more a proof examples: Ho hum.

Bay Pines VA hospital, St. Petersburg FL

Florida Dept of Employment - Job Center, Tampa, FL

Florida is not inclusive of the entire country.

National Department of Labor statistics prove you to be making up lies...yet again.

Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Just slapping a link down here doesnt
carry any weight. You got something to present, show it.

The proof examples I posted, do carry weight. They are living, breathing proof.

 

[katsteve2012]

I am black and don't say the black community is broken. I will say that our tax dollars go into developing white communities. You are white and ignore a whole lot of shit whites have done to create the damage. You need to quit talking about Dr. King.

"Where Do We Go From Here?," Address Delivered at the Eleventh Annual SCLC Convention
Author: King, Martin Luther, Jr.
Date: August 16, 1967

"With all the struggle and all the achievements, we must face the fact, however, that the Negro still lives in the basement of the Great Society. He is still at the bottom, despite the few who have penetrated to slightly higher levels. Even where the door has been forced partially open, mobility for the Negro is still sharply restricted. There is often no bottom at which to start, and when there is there's almost no room at the top. In consequence, Negroes are still impoverished aliens in an affluent society. They are too poor even to rise with the society, too impoverished by the ages to be able to ascend by using their own resources. And the Negro did not do this himself; it was done to him."

This might have been true for 1967. It definitely it not true for 2020. In fact, blacks are much better off than whites, because they have good jobs more so than whites.

Want an example ? Easy. Take a walk through a VA hospital in a city like Tampa, with large populations of both blacks and whites ,(and other minorities). Observe dozens of employees. Stay longer and observe hundreds of employees. Count how many whites you see. You can use your fingers to count them.

Blacks in general do not hold "better jobs" than whites in America. That is another outright, blatant fabrication on your part. You are a prolific liar.

I gave a perfect example of the absolute proof that yes, blacks are much better off than whites, with good jobs more so than whites.

Here's 2 more a proof examples: Ho hum.

Bay Pines VA hospital, St. Petersburg FL

Florida Dept of Employment - Job Center, Tampa, FL

Florida is not inclusive of the entire country.

National Department of Labor statistics prove you to be making up lies...yet again.

Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Just slapping a link down here doesnt
carry any weight. You got something to present, show it.

The proof examples I posted, do carry weight. They are living, breathing proof.

Bureau of labor statistics for the entire country are far more accurate than you making some vague reference to the VA system in Florida and the Florida department of employment, which contained no link to any related information.

Florida is but 1 state in America.

WTH are you smoking?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.

How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?

Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.

Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.

PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"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.-"

In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:

(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?

The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.

The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.

When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)

I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.

Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?

 

[Bezukhov]

How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?

Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.

Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.

PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"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.-"

In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:

(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?

The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.

The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.

When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)

I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.

Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?

And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.

Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.

PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"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.-"

In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:

(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?

The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.

The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.

When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)

I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.

Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?

And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"

You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest. Don't bother me with mindless drivel. You are deflecting.

 

[Bezukhov]

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.

Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?

And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"

You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest. Don't bother me with mindless drivel. You are deflecting.

Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?

Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.

Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.

PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"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.-"

In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:

(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?

The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.

The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.

When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)

I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.

Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?

I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.

Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.

I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?