America founded by whites... for whites

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Instead of hijacking someone else's thread, I wanted to defend the title of this thread by creating a thread to talk about one thing. However, before I do, I want to ask each of you a question: If I tell you that due to the court case of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal in America, does that make me pro-abortion for stating a fact?

In this thread, I will give you the facts. I'll also put perspective into it and challenge my critics to respond without name calling and without long harangues to try and derail the thread. If you participate and you begin name calling, it will be noted and then no future responses will be required as you will have lost any pretend debate. Secondary, I will not respond to long diatribes that look like a book. Let's make our posts not exceed about a dozen paragraphs (give or take a few sentences. That said, let's rock:

The United States was founded by white Christians for the benefit of white Christians. Personally, I do not find it racist or white supremacist in its proper context. But, what I'm telling you is true. The very first governing document of the New World began with these words:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith..." (see the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

About a decade later in 1630, aboard the ship the Arbella, John Winthrop gave a sermon that has been cited (in part) by all kinds of statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. I'd like to give a couple of excerpts from that sermon and put this into perspective:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.

...Thirdly, when God gives a special commission He looks to have it strictly observed in every article; When He gave Saul a commission to destroy Amaleck, He indented with him upon certain articles, and because he failed in one of the least, and that upon a fair pretense, it lost him the kingdom, which should have been his reward, if he had observed his commission.

...Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission..."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

Yeah, those who engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing, conquering and colonizing others always have some wackass feckless attempt at a rationale. It's the same with our endless bogus illegal unconstitutional wars. Hey! We're a takin' on "evil"! It's the Lord's work!

Founding a country on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and biblical precepts is a Hell of a long way from genocide.

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Correct.

The United States is a secular nation, consistent with the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.

 

[sparky]

But, here we are, discussing everything except the OP. What in the Hell is everybody afraid of?

nightmares waking up in ....>>

~S~

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Why did they bring all those black slave over here then? They had to know that was not going to turn out well. Letting them marry and have families would lead to groups forming and dissent among the slaves. A country started by being independent and hard working surely had no need for slaves, and they had to recognize the immorality of it all.

Slavery was not considered immoral as in it had be a legal institution for thousands of years going all the way back to biblical times.....Southern Plantation owners were Christians and for the most part treated their subjects very humanely.

Nowhere in the Holy Scriptures will you find slavery condemned.

The plantations needed cheap labor and blacks were ideal to fulfill that role....not even to mention that their lives on the Plantation was much better than that of their cousins in Africa...life spans were longer....many slaves lived to be very old and had lots of children.

Food was plentiful, they had adequate housing and better housing than a lot of poor white laborers.....many photos of slaves of that time demonstrate they were very well fed and clothed...everything was provided for them because they were very valuable property.a plantaion owners wealth was measured by how many slaves he had and no sane Plantation Owner would mistreat his valuable property.....Whereas back in Africa they had very short miserable lives and died of starvation, disease, and wild animal attacks, tribal wars etc. at very young ages...Africans of that time had very short life spans and still do today---- in many parts of Africa they lead very short desperate lives and thousands even millions have died at very early ages due to disease, malnutriton and tribal warfare.

Thus the blacks that were transported here were very fortunate and thus there never has been a desire for most to return .....Ameican Africans have it very,very good here....yet they have been propagandized to believe(many of them)that they are victims....though I doubt few of them really believe that...it is just a political tool for them to claim that....another way of getting the liberals to give them more stuff.

Thus going back to Africa was never considered to be something any of them wanted --back then or now.

American Africans have never desired to return to the African hell hole and no one can blame them for that.

If only librul hollywood made a film about the benefits of slavery ?

This thread is the online equivalent of lifting up a rock and watching the insects go crazy.

 

[sparky]

Instead of hijacking someone else's thread, I wanted to defend the title of this thread by creating a thread to talk about one thing. However, before I do, I want to ask each of you a question: If I tell you that due to the court case of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal in America, does that make me pro-abortion for stating a fact?

In this thread, I will give you the facts. I'll also put perspective into it and challenge my critics to respond without name calling and without long harangues to try and derail the thread. If you participate and you begin name calling, it will be noted and then no future responses will be required as you will have lost any pretend debate. Secondary, I will not respond to long diatribes that look like a book. Let's make our posts not exceed about a dozen paragraphs (give or take a few sentences. That said, let's rock:

The United States was founded by white Christians for the benefit of white Christians. Personally, I do not find it racist or white supremacist in its proper context. But, what I'm telling you is true. The very first governing document of the New World began with these words:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith..." (see the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

About a decade later in 1630, aboard the ship the Arbella, John Winthrop gave a sermon that has been cited (in part) by all kinds of statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. I'd like to give a couple of excerpts from that sermon and put this into perspective:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.

...Thirdly, when God gives a special commission He looks to have it strictly observed in every article; When He gave Saul a commission to destroy Amaleck, He indented with him upon certain articles, and because he failed in one of the least, and that upon a fair pretense, it lost him the kingdom, which should have been his reward, if he had observed his commission.

...Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission..."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

Yeah, those who engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing, conquering and colonizing others always have some wackass feckless attempt at a rationale. It's the same with our endless bogus illegal unconstitutional wars. Hey! We're a takin' on "evil"! It's the Lord's work!

Founding a country on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and biblical precepts is a Hell of a long way from genocide.

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Correct.

The United States is a secular nation, consistent with the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.

True, which a monkey could ring up six ways to sunday Clay

But the fundies have been at the scotus gates for generations

which i'm aware of.....

Porter presents with them hailing as far back as our pre-new world history , as well as staking claim to it under the banner of religious bigotry

THAT i was unaware of....

~S~

 

[TheParser]

It does not matter whether or not this country was originally intended for Caucasians only.

In just thirty years or so, Caucasians will no longer be the majority.

Therefore, the whole topic will be moot.

I presume that most Americans of all ethnicities will continue to live her and -- as usual -- do the best that they can under the circumstances. No doubt some will decide to emigrate.

 

[WinterBorn]

Instead of hijacking someone else's thread, I wanted to defend the title of this thread by creating a thread to talk about one thing. However, before I do, I want to ask each of you a question: If I tell you that due to the court case of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal in America, does that make me pro-abortion for stating a fact?

In this thread, I will give you the facts. I'll also put perspective into it and challenge my critics to respond without name calling and without long harangues to try and derail the thread. If you participate and you begin name calling, it will be noted and then no future responses will be required as you will have lost any pretend debate. Secondary, I will not respond to long diatribes that look like a book. Let's make our posts not exceed about a dozen paragraphs (give or take a few sentences. That said, let's rock:

The United States was founded by white Christians for the benefit of white Christians. Personally, I do not find it racist or white supremacist in its proper context. But, what I'm telling you is true. The very first governing document of the New World began with these words:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith..." (see the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

About a decade later in 1630, aboard the ship the Arbella, John Winthrop gave a sermon that has been cited (in part) by all kinds of statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. I'd like to give a couple of excerpts from that sermon and put this into perspective:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.

...Thirdly, when God gives a special commission He looks to have it strictly observed in every article; When He gave Saul a commission to destroy Amaleck, He indented with him upon certain articles, and because he failed in one of the least, and that upon a fair pretense, it lost him the kingdom, which should have been his reward, if he had observed his commission.

...Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission..."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

Yeah, those who engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing, conquering and colonizing others always have some wackass feckless attempt at a rationale. It's the same with our endless bogus illegal unconstitutional wars. Hey! We're a takin' on "evil"! It's the Lord's work!

Founding a country on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and biblical precepts is a Hell of a long way from genocide.

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But more whites are on welfare than blacks

LMFAO. In terms of percentages you can play all the number games you want. But, the white mans problems are complicated:

America consumes most of the world's opioid supply. American whites are singled out and constitute the biggest consumers of drugs in the entire world. It is a condition we've brought on ourselves.

At a very early age, the parents (usually egged on by the government or a doctor) put their kids on Ritalin or Adderall. For the most part such drugs are unnecessary AND the doctors don't bother to get to the root cause of alleged hyperactivity. It might be diet, bad sleeping habits, too little exercise, chaos in the home (like drug addicted parents or fighting in the home.) In any event, a five minute consultation and the cycle begins.

The child gets a bit older and they end up on opioids (whether legal or illegal.) Then the doctors, after a five minute consultation, put kids on SSRIs. Many of these kids are then easily drawn into illegal drugs and by the time they are in their early teens, they are hard core drug addicts. By the time these people are in their 20s, they are dropped off mommy's insurance by the insurance companies. Now you have generations of 20, 30, 40, and even 50 year olds that have no high school diploma, no job skills, no work experience, no work ethic, tattoos, body piercings, purple / pink hair, rotted teeth, a criminal record, and an absolute dependence on drugs and Uncle Scam. Mommy provides free rent; Uncle Scam provides a debit card for food and society is rewarded with people who sell their bodies and peddle drugs for their dealer to support their own addiction.

Big pharma profits, the government gets to profit, the boys in the hood get to become entrepreneurs, selling dope to dumb ass kids with well to do parents. The left wing / socialist / progressive / communist combine profits because it takes the posterity of the founders out of the game and allows non-producers to live off the wealth created by those who produce. The new right profits because the presence of so many drug addicts creates the illusion of a need to recruit wealthy and educated foreigners to take seats in our universities and colleges. Then those foreigners have begun to take over our government and steer us toward socialism and globalism... ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. And it ain't conspiracy theory when it happens right under your nose

Because whites are too lazy to work on the things they can change, they ARE over-represented on the welfare dole. That is no big secret, but it does not negate the facts surrounding the founding of America. There is racial genocide going on, but the white mans worst enemy is... his own race.

This post is so full of shit, it should be classified as a manure pile. You apparently know nothing about ADD and ADHD, or the process necessary to prescribe them..

I worked with foster kids as a DFACS asset. It appears YOU don't know anything about it.

I was a teacher for 21 years and have two grandsons with ADHD, which they inherited from their father, who was a borderline juvenile delinquent. I have taught literally hundreds of kids with such a diagnosis. Almost without fail, it turns out that medication can be very effective. I have had many students become very excellent students with the proper diagnosis and medication. It is also very easy to tell when a child misses a dose of medicine because of the extreme difference in behaviors. Many times, parents would call in advance if they were out of meds and waiting to get a new prescription, which is painfully difficult to get. The warnings were greatly appreciated.

That "5 minute consultation" is a lie. Teachers and parents have to complete extensive surveys about the child's behaviors and habits, just to prevent what you claim happens. Teachers are asked to complete these surveys for every class the child attends. There is hardly any doubt as to the decisions made by the physicians because of the extensive information they receive.

You are the one who is lying. Virtually all kids dumped into the foster care system are put on drugs without a diagnosis of any kind. Even the doctors who prescribe the drugs have their reservations:

Are Doctors Diagnosing Too Many Kids with ADHD?

But, here we are, discussing everything except the OP. What in the Hell is everybody afraid of? Every side comment is NOT an invitation to derail the thread with the peripheral issues. Maybe you are making a case of ADD ADHD. You have an inability to focus. Just for chits and giggles, you should start a thread over this:

“ADHD Is A Fake Disorder” Says Neurologist-Turned-Author

Unless you have a medical degree, you should just stipulate that you don't have all the facts; you will only listen to points of view that lend themselves to bias confirmation.

Back to the issue at hand.

So you are back-pedaling and saying it only applies to foster kids?

I just destroyed your pathetically weak reasoning with the facts and now you are pissed. You don't know anything about what you claim to be true, and you lie.

Why?

I have no reason to lie, but you do by pushing your agenda.

 

[Jitss617]

And yes as a community members chose Catholic schools or God being introduced in our public schools for hundreds of years

medal with community , deal with WE THE PEOPLE .. you Soviet Union lover lol

Yes, "We the people" is what the US Constitution says. The entire document only mentions religion in the negative or as an exclusion. As in the 1st Amendment and in Article VI (I believe) "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.".

Even the presidential oath, the only one detailed in the US Constitution has no mention of God or "so help me God".

So the founding fathers were careful and adamant that they were not forming a Christian nation.

Yeah... We need a thread on this. I found ample examples of Christianity in the Constitution. The framers did not want a theocracy, but the Constitution is full of biblical and Christian precepts.

I'd be happy so see it.

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

And yes as a community members chose Catholic schools or God being introduced in our public schools for hundreds of years

medal with community , deal with WE THE PEOPLE .. you Soviet Union lover lol

Yes, "We the people" is what the US Constitution says. The entire document only mentions religion in the negative or as an exclusion. As in the 1st Amendment and in Article VI (I believe) "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.".

Even the presidential oath, the only one detailed in the US Constitution has no mention of God or "so help me God".

So the founding fathers were careful and adamant that they were not forming a Christian nation.

Yeah... We need a thread on this. I found ample examples of Christianity in the Constitution. The framers did not want a theocracy, but the Constitution is full of biblical and Christian precepts.

I'd be happy so see it.

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

 

[Jitss617]

Instead of hijacking someone else's thread, I wanted to defend the title of this thread by creating a thread to talk about one thing. However, before I do, I want to ask each of you a question: If I tell you that due to the court case of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal in America, does that make me pro-abortion for stating a fact?

In this thread, I will give you the facts. I'll also put perspective into it and challenge my critics to respond without name calling and without long harangues to try and derail the thread. If you participate and you begin name calling, it will be noted and then no future responses will be required as you will have lost any pretend debate. Secondary, I will not respond to long diatribes that look like a book. Let's make our posts not exceed about a dozen paragraphs (give or take a few sentences. That said, let's rock:

The United States was founded by white Christians for the benefit of white Christians. Personally, I do not find it racist or white supremacist in its proper context. But, what I'm telling you is true. The very first governing document of the New World began with these words:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith..." (see the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

About a decade later in 1630, aboard the ship the Arbella, John Winthrop gave a sermon that has been cited (in part) by all kinds of statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. I'd like to give a couple of excerpts from that sermon and put this into perspective:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.

...Thirdly, when God gives a special commission He looks to have it strictly observed in every article; When He gave Saul a commission to destroy Amaleck, He indented with him upon certain articles, and because he failed in one of the least, and that upon a fair pretense, it lost him the kingdom, which should have been his reward, if he had observed his commission.

...Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission..."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

Yeah, those who engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing, conquering and colonizing others always have some wackass feckless attempt at a rationale. It's the same with our endless bogus illegal unconstitutional wars. Hey! We're a takin' on "evil"! It's the Lord's work!

Founding a country on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and biblical precepts is a Hell of a long way from genocide.

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

 

[The Irish Ram]

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

The colonists were wrong:

1.The colonists were under a completely different covenant than the Israelites. Their Great CO-MISSION with Jesus Christ was to spread the Good News. < Mark 16:15 It was certainly not to usurp the role and identity of the Jewish people.
2.The Israelites of the Bible were, and remain, the Israelites of the Bible (not Pilgrims, not Gentiles).
3. The promised land (which was MUCH larger than the Israel of today) was promised, by God, to His friend Abraham and Abraham's descendants. (And still is) It is an everlasting covenant.
4. New Jerusalem, is New JERUSALEM. (Not New Boston, or Philly) and it specifically replaces (you guessed it)> OLD JERUSALEM. < Locate it and X marks the spot for the new one. And it requires a REBUILT Jewish Temple prior to the new event. There was not then, in the pilgrim era, nor is there yet, a 3rd. Temple.

It's not the Bible but the interpretation of what's in it that causes man to go astray in his knowledge and understanding. Just read it. It says what it says, no need to add to or take away from what is there. (Eve added to what God said, by just a little bit), and the consequences were dire for the rest of us.

God said:

"Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

Because:

But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Then this happens:

Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

I doubt you have a monopoly on understanding. I present an opposing view:

Apocalypticism Explained | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS

The Old Jerusalem is Not the New JerUSAlem

I have no monopoly on understanding. Nor do I depend on the views of others. I read what the Bible says to discern whether or not the view of another is viable. And your links are not.
The whole narrative of the role of the Jews during the tribulation period needs no interpretation. It is as plain as God could make it.
We are even given the exact location Christ will return. The Mount of Olives. Not the Rockies, not the Mount of Appalachia. Christ will be returning to Israel which He will enlarge and set up shop.
It is not New Chicago, it is New Jerusalem. It means what it says...
Where do you think Christ is going to return to, when He returns?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

They were here when the whites got here. They allowed whites to stay here. They were not allowed to attend the constitutional convention even though they lived here. They were citizens of this country no matter what whites wrote on paper. This has never been the white mans land and this government only exists because native Americans agreed to treaties allowing the white man to stay.

500 Nations - The story of native Americans - part I

Now, dude, THAT is a lot of opinionated hogwash. You apparently don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Your real weakness is that the truth is always in a state of flux for you. One minute you're on the bandwagon that paints the whites as barbarians that took this country by force, thereby denying the legitimacy of the times of Right of Conquest. Now you're saying the whites got this country via treaties? Dumbassery!

IF the whites got this country by way of a treaty, then you're saying the native Indians legitimately owned this country and gave up title to the whites so there is no way on God's green earth you can claim to be an original citizen since neither whites nor blacks were citizens until the whites organized the government.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Christian Identity
Christian Identity is a religious doctrine that is a major factor within the ultra right movement in the United States. It is recognized that many of the ideas espoused by Identity are offensive, but a complete discussion is needed to understand the motivation of the movement. The Christian Identity movement is a religious movement derived from the premise that the white race is the offspring of the lost tribes of Israel and that whites, not Jews, are God's chosen people.

Christian Identity Movement (CIM) Beliefs

Christian Identity Beliefs
Under Identity, the British Israelism or Anglo Israelism concepts were changed to, the view that the United States is the true Israel.

Porter Rockwell, The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

The Articles of Confederation, according to Identity, was a contract between the states; the states represented "the people," who were, in fact, Christian people, that is, the chosen people of God, the white race. This contract is considered by Identity proponents to have been made irrevocable "perpetual" and unchangeable. When the founding fathers saw the need for a more effective governmental organization the Articles, that formed the 13 American colonies into a union, did not provide for sufficient central authority, the Constitution was written.

Porter Rockwell, ALL of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States were white. By the time we get to the Preamble of the Constitution, we see some very specific language:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Preamble of the Constitution)

Never mind that non whites and women of all races did not get invited. That includes white women, which kinda kills the claim of America was founded for whites.

According to Identity, the principles for the Constitution were taken from the Articles of Confederation since the Articles could not be revoked. Identity teaches, therefore, that because the U.S. Constitution was taken directly from the Articles of Confederation, which was based upon God's Laws through the Bible, the Constitution is a divinely inspired document. And just as Identity views the Articles of Confederation as having been irrevocable and unchangeable, so too does it view the U.S. Constitution.

Since this contract is irrevocable and unchangeable, Identity views any subsequent Amendments as being illegal and unconstitutional. Identity contends that because of the Jewish anti-Christian conspiracy, he U.S. constitution has been illegally and unconstitutionally subverted from its original intent and design. The only portion that is legal is the original text and the Bill of Rights. Any subsequent inclusions to the Constitution that alter the original meaning of the document are not valid and need not be obeyed.

Porter Rockwell, The lying politicians did not "fix" this for the blacks with the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. The ONLY thing the 14th Amendment really accomplished was to nullify God given, unalienable Rights and attempt to make citizens subject to the almighty state. It turned Rights into privileges and immunities. It made slaves of ALL Americans. It failed at imposing a government created equality.

Identity contends that Jews sometimes calld "alien internationalists" have increasingly gained control in the media, industry, and Government in the United States (the Zionist Occupational Government, or ZOG). Moreover, this is part of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the United States as a white Christian Nation. Because of this increasing influence, Jewish interests have been responsible for the passing and/or supporting of laws specifically designed to subvert the Constitution and change the United States from that which it was originally intended to be. As a result of these acts, wars, debts, and other Jewish-conspired evils have befallen white Christians in the United States.

Porter Rockwell, Occasionally, you get a piece of the truth from those who profited of the slave trade:

"We Jews, however, even liberal ones, who justifiably insist that the history of the Nazi Holocaust not be denied, can hardly urge African Americans to suppress the record of the slave trade and the involvement of our own ancestors in it. It also does not help to accompany all discussions of Jewish slave trading with indictments of Christians and Arab Muslims as the true villains of the African slave trade. (Brackman, for example, provides a somewhat lurid catalogue of 'Arab slave raids" using, among other sources, my own research.

In fact, the Muslim or Oriental slave trade out of Africa involved mainly Berber, Swahili, and other Black African raiders and merchants rather than Arabs.) Thus while we should not ignore the anti-Semitism of The Secret Relationship (limited at least to accusations of avarice rather than blood libels or plots to rule the world), we must recognize the legitimacy of the stated aim of examining fully and directly even the most uncomfortable elements in our common past, There are certainly better ways than those of this book, from both a scholarly and moral perspective, to carry out such an examination. But carried out it must be', not to apportion or remove guilt but rather to learn who we are through what we were and to incorporate this knowledge into the struggle to become something better."

So as we plainly see, Mr. Rockwell adheres to the Christian Identity philosophy of white supremacy.

[/QUOTE]

NOBODY on this board has mentioned Christian Identity. There are churches other than Christian Identity that hold the view that the Anglo Saxon people are the Israelites and that America is the New Jerusalem. The Mormons are a bit fluid on the subject, but they subscribe to the basic tenets. The founders / framers believed in it.

So, now that you're posting multiple posts, droning on and on with irrelevant subject matter, and you stayed up all night long posting gibberish, we can safely conclude (as many posters on this thread already have) YOU LOSE. Most of your deflections are feeble attempts to derail this thread as now your real motives have been exposed. I try to imagine what it must have been like for you last night, staying up till the wee hours, pecking your keyboard and trying to make yourself look good and save face. It won't work. YOU LOST THIS ONE.

Due to a lot of irrelevant posts, I am going to do one just for you, IM2. Scroll through this stuff until you see it in big letters. Too many people posting off topic crap to make any points...

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

so if i'm reading this right, Israel & Israelites back before Israel was a nation state were considered a some sort of biblical idealists?

unfuzz me Porter.....

~S~

I don't understand your question. Rephrase please.

Mea Cuppa Porter

The story posted, somewhere from the late 1500's to 1600's ,had the explorers to the 'promised land' opining that they considered themselves the 'chosen ones' , as well as 'Israelities'

Unless i missed it, they appeared to in no way connect this to the state of Israel, or Judaism

They predicated their then 'white supremacy' on a biblical ideal that most likely wouldn't fly in today's world.

It might be like a cult of modern skin heads declaring themselves Israelis and annexing Montana as their promised land .....

~S~

The notion that whites (the Anglo Saxon, Scandinavian, Germanic, Teutonic and kindred people) are the Israelites is many, many, many hundreds of years older than skinheads. You should read my first two posts and access the links.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

But, man, America being founded by a specific people and all Hell breaks loose.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:

"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."

The founders were men of remarkable genius, not infallible character. Racist idiots today who fail to understand what they were saying and to whom, are too stupid to be considered real Americans

Methinks we would like to think the FF's visionary , i know i certainly would

They could talk the constitutional talk....but did they really walk the constitutional walk is the Q.....

It's not the Bible but the interpretation of what's in it that causes man to go astray in his knowledge and understanding

The Old Jerusalem is Not the New JerUSAlem

christ on a cracker!

now my head's gonna blow up.....

~S~

Sometimes I don't follow your posts. It's not being able to understand modern syntax.

Let me just say one thing to you:

If you look at the back of a dime, you will see fasci. That supposedly made us a fascist nation in the eyes of some.

Some of the founders / framers were Masons, so were supposedly a Masonic country.

If you listen to IM2, the founders / framers were all white supremacists and that any church that espouses the Christian Israelite view is "Christian Identity."

The real facts are that the early colonists believed (and rightfully so) that they are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob / Israel. A movement comes along and tries to appropriate some of the Christian Israel tenets of faith in order to justify their political agenda.

I'm sure (just as Trump was sure) there are good guys and bad guys that are in the Identity movement. With the degree of censorship we live under, it's difficult to find people who have valid arguments. Christian Identity apparently uses some valid points, but those around here have raised the ire of Christian Israelites. If you will take the time to access the links in my first two posts and read them, you will learn a LOT about what our forefathers thought - and it ain't what the extremists and ill educated here think it is.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, "We the people" is what the US Constitution says. The entire document only mentions religion in the negative or as an exclusion. As in the 1st Amendment and in Article VI (I believe) "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.".

Even the presidential oath, the only one detailed in the US Constitution has no mention of God or "so help me God".

So the founding fathers were careful and adamant that they were not forming a Christian nation.

Yeah... We need a thread on this. I found ample examples of Christianity in the Constitution. The framers did not want a theocracy, but the Constitution is full of biblical and Christian precepts.

I'd be happy so see it.

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

Yes, "We the people" is what the US Constitution says. The entire document only mentions religion in the negative or as an exclusion. As in the 1st Amendment and in Article VI (I believe) "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.".

Even the presidential oath, the only one detailed in the US Constitution has no mention of God or "so help me God".

So the founding fathers were careful and adamant that they were not forming a Christian nation.

Yeah... We need a thread on this. I found ample examples of Christianity in the Constitution. The framers did not want a theocracy, but the Constitution is full of biblical and Christian precepts.

I'd be happy so see it.

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

View attachment 299961

YOu keep posting as if I am anti-Second Amendment. That is obviously not true. Quit lying to try and play the victim.

 

[Jitss617]

Yeah... We need a thread on this. I found ample examples of Christianity in the Constitution. The framers did not want a theocracy, but the Constitution is full of biblical and Christian precepts.

I'd be happy so see it.

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

Yeah... We need a thread on this. I found ample examples of Christianity in the Constitution. The framers did not want a theocracy, but the Constitution is full of biblical and Christian precepts.

I'd be happy so see it.

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

View attachment 299961

YOu keep posting as if I am anti-Second Amendment. That is obviously not true. Quit lying to try and play the victim.

Lol no your not you have stated you love the over regulation of the bill of rights.. you hate America

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, those who engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing, conquering and colonizing others always have some wackass feckless attempt at a rationale. It's the same with our endless bogus illegal unconstitutional wars. Hey! We're a takin' on "evil"! It's the Lord's work!

Founding a country on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and biblical precepts is a Hell of a long way from genocide.

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Founding a country on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and biblical precepts is a Hell of a long way from genocide.

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

When you argue with crazy people you become crazy yourself.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'd be happy so see it.

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

I'd be happy so see it.

Haven’t we educated you enough this week when are you going to Pay for all this teaching we are getting you

The difference between us is that I will admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong. You won't. You just dance and try to say I twisted your words.

View attachment 299961

YOu keep posting as if I am anti-Second Amendment. That is obviously not true. Quit lying to try and play the victim.

Lol no your not you have stated you love the over regulation of the bill of rights.. you hate America

That is a lie. I don't consider not allowing violent convicted to own guns "over regulation" at all. And neither does the SCOTUS.

And considering you think the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of a local community, you are the one showing hatred for the nation.

 

[WinterBorn]

And the founding fathers of this nation made sure it was not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson specifically stated that it was not. What was said on the Mayflower was made irrelevant by the US Constitution. And the subsequent constitutional amendments further separated us from the "White Christian" nation idea.

Dear WinterBorn and Porter Rockwell
I agree more with WinterBorn.

One problem with this set up is the rationalist/Deists such as Jefferson
get thrown in and counted "as Christians" by today's standards but back then,
anyone who questioned or contested "government rule by the Church" was
considered more like an apostate or heretic "against God and Christianity."

By one angle such Founding leaders are grouped together as "Christians promoting God and Christianity"
but by another angle of creating a "wall of separation" between church and state authority
they are seen as promoting SECULARISM in ways that are AGAINST Christianity.

Which way is it?

Both. What we ended up with are Constitutional laws that defend individual rights
whereby Government can NEITHER establish NOR prohibit religious exercise.

Instead of fighting over these sides as "either / or"
what we need to accept is the balance between both being respected simultaneously.

Government cannot be abused EITHER to Establish or Prohibit.

And, as political history teaches us, where we do make the overreaching mistake
of abusing government to establish a particular BIAS (as Porter Rockwell points out in the given examples of such flaws)
this causes OPPRESSION and an equal and opposite BACKLASH in response.

So the problem has to be corrected so the Government doesn't contradict its own laws.

Thus the political process of reform seeks to correct such inconsistencies and conflicts of interests/biases in the laws.

This process continues until we develop a more mature or "more perfect" system of democratic representation within a republic.

By natural laws of democratic government, from which our Constitution is derived but still needs self-correction to "more perfectly" reflect,
these rights, freedoms and protections will eventually be embraced and enforced for all people seeking equal justice under law.

Yes, Porter Rockwell, we are starting with an imperfect draft.
Similar to our math system that is still being expanded on today,
or with our system of science where new definitions and discoveries
are still developing, based on expanding on the laws and knowledge established previously.

Just because the founding language and laws weren't perfect or complete
doesn't mean we can't use the given system to perfect itself.

We have the basic tools outlined that we agree to defend by the Constitution:
freedom of speech and of the press; the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, including
petitioning to defend free exercise of religion from unfair bias, prohibition,
establishment, or discrimination by creed; and rights of due process, security,
equal protections of the laws, and no taxation without representation.

Porter Rockwell starting with enforcing these basic principles for US citizens,
once we master how to teach and uphold that framework for sustainable self-government,
then we can help all other nations to develop the same.

It may have been founded with the intent of helping the citizens of America,
who at that time were considered just the white property owners, but the same
natural law principles govern all people who agree to enforce them in practice.
By the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, to establish Equal Justice Under Law
means to accept equal responsibility for enforcing the same.

This is indeed a Christian principle, but it is meant to help all people
learn to live by the same standards of liberty, peace and justice for all.

I am not saying whether the founding fathers were Christian. That can often be hard to tell.

But the nation that they founded was not founded as a Christian nation. Those wise men went to some lengths to make sure it was a secular nation.

Not according to history books .. I honestly don’t think America is the country for you.. sorry buddy

According to the US Constitution, it is not. And this country is exactly the country for me. Get used to me. I am not going to live anywhere else.

I do find it amusing that you claim it was founded for white Christians, and you claim to be a patriotic American. Hard to believe you identify as a Christian.

When you argue with crazy people you become crazy yourself.

What makes you think I was sane when I started.

Sometimes shooting fish in a barrel is entertaining.