America Founded as a Christian Nation

[Porter Rockwell]

1. AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION
   
   1) America was founded as a Christian nation
   
   2) It was not the intent of the founding fathers / framers to create a theocracy. America is not, never has been, and probably would never be a theocracy. So, that argument is off the table
   
   3) In America you do not have to join a church, believe in any specific tenets of faith (though believing in the wrong ones will get you in trouble with the current illegal / de facto / unconstitutional powers that be at the moment)
   
   4) Religious Liberty ... the Right to believe or disbelieve is absolutely guaranteed
   
   5) America was founded on basic Christian precepts / principles and those can only be altered by an amendment to the Constitution
   
   6) As long as America was guided by those principles, they progressed - and progressed faster than any nation in the annals of history. In just over 300 years, starting with 104 passengers on the Mayflower, we went from starving colonists to building the biggest armies, navies, and air forces in the world. America would be the home to the discovery of electricity, the telegraph, the telephone, the television and onto the transistor (which ushered in the computer era) were marked with American influence.
   
   We put more soldiers onto foreign soil to fight tyranny, oppression, genocide, and other abuses than any nation in history. We dominated the whole field of sending missionaries into third world countries to help build communities, start gardens, teach irrigation techniques, and spread the Gospel.
   
   We conquered diseases, set world records for production and fed the world.
   
   7) We did that in our first 300 or so years... we became greater than the Roman Empire became in 1000 years. We became great because our ancestors had a vision. And I'm going to post a link that has not been read nor discussed since post # 1. Is there anybody here that read the first two posts and comment accordingly? If not, THIS, not the last 900 + posts are what this is about:
   
   https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf See Part 2 of this in my next posting

 

[Porter Rockwell]

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION Part 2

The Mayflower Compact was the first governing document of the New World. That was in 1620. The link in my first post came only a decade later on the ship, the Arbella, delivered by John Winthrop. So significant was Winthrop's sermon that 300 + years later, it was being referenced by statesmen, including, but not limited to U.S. presidents JFK and Ronald Reagan. But, back to the Mayflower Compact...

In an 1896 United States Supreme Court case Holy Trinity v. U.S.the high Court had this to say:


"If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American Life as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following:

The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name of God, amen;” the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

https://sheldonemrylibrary.famguardian.org/BibleStudyCourses/BLC-1.pdf

The case starts on page 13 and you will find my quotes from the actual case on page 18 of the link above. If you post a reply, have the decency to read the entire case.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#943 reply to #932

When that troll made a big deal out of my inadvertent faux pas of leaving out the link,

FOR THE RECORD: Forgetting a link has nothing to do with it. I’ve made the point that notice was provided that Porter Rockwell’s quote was wrong. As he says, he looked into the source and eventually provided a link to the very same Jefferson letter and date that I was using. But then Peter Rockwell does not have the decency to acknowledge that I was correct. Instead he goes into a rant and calls me a liar.

But as we can see he cannot explain why?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

#943 reply to #932

When that troll made a big deal out of my inadvertent faux pas of leaving out the link,

FOR THE RECORD: Forgetting a link has nothing to do with it. I’ve made the point that notice was provided that Porter Rockwell’s quote was wrong. As he says, he looked into the source and eventually provided a link to the very same Jefferson letter and date that I was using. But then Peter Rockwell does not have the decency to acknowledge that I was correct. Instead he goes into a rant and calls me a liar.

But as we can see he cannot explain why?

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

NOTFOOLEDBYW'S FINAL RESPONSE

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Porter Rockwell]

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION Part 3

This is a continuation of posts # 941 and 942. I apologize that we have a couple of trolls with their sockpuppets and 3 sockpuppets are gone. Our resident troll is about to earn his own daily special of the insults, name calling, and lies he's engaged in if I have to suffer him another day. But, I am looking for real content based on the topic.

Although we had hit and run attacks by trolls who would come at the behest of my most ardent critics, they were not reported for the violations that they are. But, at this juncture, we can address them.

I left off with a very important link that led me to study the issues brought up in posts # 1 and # 2. In another 65 posts (as I'm typing) we will have hit the 1,000th post with NO CRITIC willing to address the first two posts.

OTOH, we have defeated EVERY ARGUMENT that was thrown at the OP. When I say we, there were others who made significant contributions to this effort before tiring on the sockpuppets, hit and run attacks, personal attacks, and those who have dedicated their lives into derailing this thread. So, let us take their arguments apart, one by one. The critics will not have the courage to address these issues so I may have to cut and paste this reboot that we started 1000 posts ago until we generate something new to the conversation.

So, right now, many secularists, atheists, non-believers... whatever like to quote the First Amendment. So, what does that amendment really say?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I bolded some words for you there so you can see them very plainly. Congress in the First Amendment referred to the U.S. Congress. That does not apply to the states. In part 2 we referred you to the link above. In lesson 1 in that link, starting on page 13 is the text of the United States Supreme Court opinion / ruling that spends several pages explaining our Christian historical roots and concluding that we are a Christian nation.

Today, Congress DOES prohibit the free exercise of religion. They've obviously decided who does and does not qualify to be a religion; the government strips churches of their tax exempt status for violating government policies - policies that the United States Supreme Court said themselves to have the "effect of a religion." A Bible study in your living room is unlawful assembly and to Trump's credit (I don't like the man), he is trying to get students Rights to pray back in the public schools. So take a look at the above link. I will take on another criticism in my next post if we get no immediate replies to the first 3 posts I've done in this reboot.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Post #946 FOR THE RECORD: The correct quote in question does not include the word “Christ” after “doctrine of Jesus..., in Jefferson’s letter to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.

Jefferson never in his life expressed in writing a belief in Jesus Christ. He always considered Jesus to be just a mere mortal man - not Christ.

#496

* "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." Thomas Jefferson

* The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.

#552.

In order to prove "Notfooledbyw" is a pathological liar, I invite all to see post # 495 wherein I wrote:

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." Thomas Jefferson

* The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816

Examine at WHEN that was posted and when the time this is being posted. There is no way in HELL I edited that post, making that troll a liar.

#944

But, I cut and pasted the quote as I found it on the Internet:

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

If you look a few quotes down, you can see where I got it from.

FOR THE RECORD; see following link and source. My source and my link have the exact quote that proves Porter Rockwell’s source is a bogus fraud.

#539

. To Charles Thomson Monticello, January 9, 1816. see bold text in except from the whole original.

To Charles Thomson Monticello, January 9, 1816 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

However Porter Rockwell continues to use the bogus source and based on that calls me s liar.

perhaps he thinks because he did not edit it, and if it’s on the internet it must be true

 

[sparky]

Who says you have to "demand" them.

theocrats do if you follow my analogy....~S~

The thing is, this thread is not about a theocracy. At least show enough common courtesy to read the first two posts before going in off topic universes.

You have to admit this is confusing Porter>>>

AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED AS A THEOCRACY. IT WAS FOUNDED AS A REPUBLIC BASED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

~S~

 

[Bezukhov]

One of the goals of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War. That wasn't in line with Christian Principles?

 

[Correll]

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

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


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


but to fight against American interests.

 

[Bezukhov]

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

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


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


but to fight against American interests.

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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#951 Is it anti-American to not agree that America was founded as a Christian nation.

#951 reply to #949

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

There appears to be a pattern here emerging as to Correll’s role here. No matter the validity of points made in opposition to the absurd notion that America was founded as a Christian Nation at some point the opposition is accused of being anti-American.

it certainly feels like this has happened before.

 

[Correll]

Having people live here and not be citizens and thus not have the rights of citizens,

sounds like YOU are conflating citizenship with rights.

EVERYBODY has unalienable Rights. The benefits and privileges of citizenship (voting, getting welfare, Socialist Security, etc.) are NOT Rights. Clearly you are confused on this. Citizenship is a privilege - not a guarantee nor a prerequisite for unalienable Rights.

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

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

Let's take this issue:

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

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

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

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

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

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

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

 

[Correll]

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

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


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


but to fight against American interests.

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

I did not say that. It is typical that you lied. Standard anti-American shit behavior.

 

[Correll]

#951 Is it anti-American to not agree that America was founded as a Christian nation.

#951 reply to #949

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

There appears to be a pattern here emerging as to Correll’s role here. No matter the validity of points made in opposition to the absurd notion that America was founded as a Christian Nation at some point the opposition is accused of being anti-American.

it certainly feels like this has happened before.

The pattern emerging is that you cut what I am replying to, and then make up shit to strawman me.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

One of the goals of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War. That wasn't in line with Christian Principles?

Promising equality was the pretext by which what we would call liberals today presented the bill to the American people. I posted here once about cognitive dissonance. It is the ability to hold two opposing views at the same time.

Count the number of times that my critics have tried to make this a slavery issue. Then they showed that AFTER slavery (and I have not checked their numbers) was abolished, the numbers of slaves grew at a rate faster than freemen in many areas. We know from the history of WWII that people do not breed like rabbits when they are being beaten, starved, and tortured. Yet, the left tries their best to present that scenario when their own numbers testify against it.

Still, something for nothing, woe is me, the other guy is at fault for me not having a chance are good themes in America. People get emotionally worked up over nothing. I realize that you want this to be a slavery thread, but I'm telling you for the last time, it is against the rules of this board to attempt to change the OP. Once we're finished with this, that is it. This post ends the question.

The REAL reason for passing the 14th Amendment was to take your unalienable Rights and convert them into government created Rights. I've tried that thread and people want to talk about something else and You've been told, repeatedly, not to try and derail this thread. You've been answered, so do not post any more slavery posts on this thread. I WILL NOT RESPOND TO THEM. IF YOU REALLY CARE (AND WE BOTH KNOW YOU DO NOT) START YOUR OWN THREAD. YOU'RE HERE TO TROLL. ATTEMPTS TO DERAIL THE THREAD AND TROLLING ARE AGAINST THE RULES IN THIS BOARD ZONE

 

[Porter Rockwell]

#951 Is it anti-American to not agree that America was founded as a Christian nation.

#951 reply to #949

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

There appears to be a pattern here emerging as to Correll’s role here. No matter the validity of points made in opposition to the absurd notion that America was founded as a Christian Nation at some point the opposition is accused of being anti-American.

it certainly feels like this has happened before.

The pattern emerging is that you cut what I am replying to, and then make up shit to strawman me.

That reply is going to be a classic. That is exactly what I said, especially given the number of times that troll has called people stupid, morons, liars, etc. On an on he's gone about trivial matters that would not change the outcome of this thread. He cannot simply say he disagrees and then move forward.

By my count, this guy has close to 400 posts here and virtually all of them are straw man posts, attacks, insults, and lies. He will do anything to remain involved in the thread even at the expense of destroying his credibility. I told him, I am not a liar and since he refuses to leave this alone and cease and desist that behavior, I am not interacting with him again. Thank you for confirming what all those post numbers are adding up to.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Who says you have to "demand" them.

theocrats do if you follow my analogy....~S~

The thing is, this thread is not about a theocracy. At least show enough common courtesy to read the first two posts before going in off topic universes.

You have to admit this is confusing Porter>>>

AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED AS A THEOCRACY. IT WAS FOUNDED AS A REPUBLIC BASED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

~S~

The only reason that this thread goes over the head of secularists, atheists, etc. is that they refuse to read the first two posts, ask questions and move forward. As I type this, we have over 950 posts and not one, single, solitary critic read the first two posts, accessed the links, and framed their responses around that - or even asked a single, solitary question related to those two posts. ALL we do is argue about Thomas Jefferson, The Treaty of Tripoli, and slavery every freaking day when NONE of it is relative to the first two posts.

No thread has survived this many attempts to derail it in USM history. If it died today, I'd hold the board record. Check the posts. Sockpuppets have been banned; trolls with OCD have been exposed; one poster is about to have to check into a mental ward because his posts are not being validated. These guys are all about their own viewpoints, but scared as a mouse to have an honest and civil conversation.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

EVERYBODY has unalienable Rights. The benefits and privileges of citizenship (voting, getting welfare, Socialist Security, etc.) are NOT Rights. Clearly you are confused on this. Citizenship is a privilege - not a guarantee nor a prerequisite for unalienable Rights.

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

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

Let's take this issue:

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

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

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

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[deanrd]

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

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

The willingness to commit atrocities and blame the victims.

The greed and the worship of money.

The lies and dishonesty.

and the terrible racism.

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

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

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


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


but to fight against American interests.

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

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

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

Demographics of China - Wikipedia

There are other countries that are basically one race:

Monoethnicity - Wikipedia

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

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

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

Is "Israeli" a Nationality?

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

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

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

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

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

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