The Land of my ancestors

[Mortimer]

Opinions?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Opinions?

My opinion is that too many people are becoming so consumed with the immigration issue from what they perceive as a "legal" issue that they lose sight of WHY our forefathers came here in the first place.

In my files and on my bookcases are copies of hundreds of speeches and sermons by the men and women who fled the oppression of Europe and the British Isles - the tyranny of people like King George. They tell us WHY, in great detail, what the driving force was and the mission IS. One sermon has stood out among the others and politicians even up to John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan have seen fit to quote from it (though I realize that speech writers wrote it for them and neither actually read it. I hope that you will read this:

John Winthrop: A Modell of Christian Charity, 1630

When the Constitution of the United States was ratified, it did not proclaim to be a document meant to be a universal document for every nation and every people. Allow me to quote the Preamble and bold the pertinent words and let's see if you understand the real founding of America:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

 

[Porter Rockwell]

This thread really deserved some well thought out responses.

 

[Ronin]

Sometimes this subject can be challenging if one looks at both sides. The use of ancestry led me to information that my lineage is very similar to what is described here. It makes them sound adventurous and justified. I don’t think anyone can take away the hard work any from those who came before us (all ethnic groups) during the nation’s infancy. However, it’s the moral issue that is difficult to look over. Does the video infer the hardships they overcame was the resistance to the indigenous population? Manifest destiny produced a nation, but on the blood of others.

Another point when it comes to a question of morality is who is right? Those that arrive in any given area first or those with developed technology to drive them off. There was a time the land known as the United States existed without any homo sapiens. The now known “Native Americans” ancestors arrived here first by crossing the Bering bridge. Does that make them “Native”? Or are they no more native then someone who was born here yesterday? Who decides this type of question? Obviously like any other time in history the person with the bigger gun will eventually decide what “moral” is.

I don’t know who the creator of the video is referring to when it states as “leeches”. Is he referring to immigrants both legal and illegal or just illegal?

Another thought is where this perspective takes us as a species in the future. Will there be a time when flags and anthems are relics of the past? I am not referring to a conspiratorial new world order. There will be a time when for several reasons our civilization is going to have to make a choice. Progress to another level and reach for space or destroy itself.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Sometimes this subject can be challenging if one looks at both sides. The use of ancestry led me to information that my lineage is very similar to what is described here. It makes them sound adventurous and justified. I don’t think anyone can take away the hard work any from those who came before us (all ethnic groups) during the nation’s infancy. However, it’s the moral issue that is difficult to look over. Does the video infer the hardships they overcame was the resistance to the indigenous population? Manifest destiny produced a nation, but on the blood of others.

Another point when it comes to a question of morality is who is right? Those that arrive in any given area first or those with developed technology to drive them off. There was a time the land known as the United States existed without any homo sapiens. The now known “Native Americans” ancestors arrived here first by crossing the Bering bridge. Does that make them “Native”? Or are they no more native then someone who was born here yesterday? Who decides this type of question? Obviously like any other time in history the person with the bigger gun will eventually decide what “moral” is.

I don’t know who the creator of the video is referring to when it states as “leeches”. Is he referring to immigrants both legal and illegal or just illegal?

Another thought is where this perspective takes us as a species in the future. Will there be a time when flags and anthems are relics of the past? I am not referring to a conspiratorial new world order. There will be a time when for several reasons our civilization is going to have to make a choice. Progress to another level and reach for space or destroy itself.

History shows that once you mix races, religions, political viewpoints, sexual orientations, creeds, and so forth, the civilization collapses.

Every race has a destiny and we also have a Right to our own homeland. Today, the New World Order types have singled out one people for total genocide. It's worth thinking about.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Very compelling video Mortimer.
And I have to agree with it. There are very few frontiers left and none can support large numbers of people.
If America doesnt take back it's sovereignty there's nowhere to else to go. America is the last bastion of freedom,if it goes as does the world.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Andrew Jackson noted "12 million happy citizens", comparable to Germany, before any immigration took place since the founding of the United States, in the 1830s. Was it to become Completely like one of those other "homeland" like European countries, like any other? The answer is no, in all cases. There's an argument taking place in the 1913 presidency of Woodrow Wilson. He was an Ulster-Scot lineage family man. His concerns academic were still in Europe. He wrote concerning the drawing together of Executive and Congress such as the Parliament system, in a political authorship. He championed primarily the freedom of the native peoples in self-determining states in the Balkans , Peace for all Europe, and the 14 Points and Treaty of Versailles. He had defeated Theodore Roosevelt, the next president, whom upon being even More focused on beating the Democrat nominee, came with a totally different outlook. Woodrow Wilson complimented a Cosmopolitan society of recognizing the heritage of german americans for instance and citing their loyalty during world war 1. Theodore Roosevelt would be elected on a unitary platform, there was One Language English, he said, and one Nationalist, he said, American. Some of that old traditional political outlook still remains today and is also relevant. Neither one is Ever cited as "anti-immigrant". The Wilson's were proud however of a long "American" lineage.

That poster may be interested in Pol Pot's Cambodia I was reading about. He must have seen "Hunger Games" in theatres and did it in reverse. The French authorities had let migrant Vietnamese, Chinese and muslim minorities in the cities, they were all distrusted and forced out of the cities into "sectors", those rural "sectors" had to let in the "candidates" and "deportees", well the rest of it was a big enough mess by itself.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Sometimes this subject can be challenging if one looks at both sides. The use of ancestry led me to information that my lineage is very similar to what is described here. It makes them sound adventurous and justified. I don’t think anyone can take away the hard work any from those who came before us (all ethnic groups) during the nation’s infancy. However, it’s the moral issue that is difficult to look over. Does the video infer the hardships they overcame was the resistance to the indigenous population? Manifest destiny produced a nation, but on the blood of others.

Another point when it comes to a question of morality is who is right? Those that arrive in any given area first or those with developed technology to drive them off. There was a time the land known as the United States existed without any homo sapiens. The now known “Native Americans” ancestors arrived here first by crossing the Bering bridge. Does that make them “Native”? Or are they no more native then someone who was born here yesterday? Who decides this type of question? Obviously like any other time in history the person with the bigger gun will eventually decide what “moral” is.

I don’t know who the creator of the video is referring to when it states as “leeches”. Is he referring to immigrants both legal and illegal or just illegal?


Another thought is where this perspective takes us as a species in the future. Will there be a time when flags and anthems are relics of the past? I am not referring to a conspiratorial new world order. There will be a time when for several reasons our civilization is going to have to make a choice. Progress to another level and reach for space or destroy itself.

I agtee with you somewhat. Mind is a great thing that many people don't us. Part of my family cam over to this land mass for one reason. Freedom to practice their faith. King Heny got rid of the Catholic Church. A part of my family and George Fox formed the Socity of Friends. (Quakers). Time has passed and the world became smaller. It was at the time of the Revalution that different rases arrived. Yes free Blacks came in at that time. People back then were looking for Freedom from being RULED.
Taxes and outright theft from England cause the main problem. We the people in this day and age still look to the rule of law as our right to be a Nation. This seems to be under attact by people who do not follow the law. It also seems that Freedom has become FREE STUFF. That is my opinion.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Sometimes this subject can be challenging if one looks at both sides. The use of ancestry led me to information that my lineage is very similar to what is described here. It makes them sound adventurous and justified. I don’t think anyone can take away the hard work any from those who came before us (all ethnic groups) during the nation’s infancy. However, it’s the moral issue that is difficult to look over. Does the video infer the hardships they overcame was the resistance to the indigenous population? Manifest destiny produced a nation, but on the blood of others.

Another point when it comes to a question of morality is who is right? Those that arrive in any given area first or those with developed technology to drive them off. There was a time the land known as the United States existed without any homo sapiens. The now known “Native Americans” ancestors arrived here first by crossing the Bering bridge. Does that make them “Native”? Or are they no more native then someone who was born here yesterday? Who decides this type of question? Obviously like any other time in history the person with the bigger gun will eventually decide what “moral” is.

I don’t know who the creator of the video is referring to when it states as “leeches”. Is he referring to immigrants both legal and illegal or just illegal?


Another thought is where this perspective takes us as a species in the future. Will there be a time when flags and anthems are relics of the past? I am not referring to a conspiratorial new world order. There will be a time when for several reasons our civilization is going to have to make a choice. Progress to another level and reach for space or destroy itself.

I agtee with you somewhat. Mind is a great thing that many people don't us. Part of my family cam over to this land mass for one reason. Freedom to practice their faith. King Heny got rid of the Catholic Church. A part of my family and George Fox formed the Socity of Friends. (Quakers). Time has passed and the world became smaller. It was at the time of the Revalution that different rases arrived. Yes free Blacks came in at that time. People back then were looking for Freedom from being RULED.
Taxes and outright theft from England cause the main problem. We the people in this day and age still look to the rule of law as our right to be a Nation. This seems to be under attact by people who do not follow the law. It also seems that Freedom has become FREE STUFF. That is my opinion.

WHY YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE

You tend to believe most strongly that which you hear first

IF you change, it will be most likely to that which you hear repeated many times

You tend to believe that which you WANT to believe or that which fits your preconceived ideas or notions

Last, humans are least likely to believe that which is logical and makes sense... ESPECIALLY if it contradicts what they hear the most.

Having said that, both the left and the right have nothing but a disdain for the Constitution and any "Rule of Law." The left has NO loyalty nor understanding of the Constitution. But, the left does know how to use political guerrilla warfare. The right has NO understanding of their history, heritage, destiny, nor the real meaning of the Rule of Law and certainly not what the Constitution is about.

As a result, both the left and the right are going down two different paths and will arrive at the same destination. The left is purposely going there; the right has been conned into going there.

 

[Crepitus]

are they no more native then someone who was born here yesterday?

You start looking at things like that and the only place people are actually native to is the great rift valley in Africa.

 

[Jitss617]

Democrats need to be defeated

 

[Porter Rockwell]

are they no more native then someone who was born here yesterday?

You start looking at things like that and the only place people are actually native to is the great rift valley in Africa.

It appears to me that we are getting too philosophical of the past.

Regardless of who was here first, the United States was founded by a certain people. Maybe they were not the first to come here, but they did not find a civilized people and the colonists claimed the land by Right of Conquest which was accepted international law until 1974 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314. Since our Constitution prohibits the passage of ex post facto laws (Clause 3 Article I Section 9 of the Constitution) our government would never contemplate any legal challenge as to who the rightful owners of the United States really are.

The best summation of our history relative to immigration and citizenship I've ever read in a condensed form is the obiter dictum in the case of Dred Scott v Sanford of 1857.

Obiter dictum is the judge's opinion and expressions of how he / she arrived at their conclusions about the law in a given case. In this case, the man who wrote the majority opinion was Chief Justice Roger Taney. While many people are attracted to the idea of reading the summary of the case and thinking it's all about slavery, the obiter dictum in Dred Scott devotes more than 20 pages to our founding, history, immigration and citizenship. I've posted the link many times, but never had anyone actually post and say they accessed and read it:

Scott v. Sandford

If you ever actually read that case, you get a whole different perspective about our laws on this subject.

 

[cnm]

Maybe they were not the first to come here, but they did not find a civilized people and the colonists claimed the land by Right of Conquest

I thought it was by Right of Breaking Treaties.

 

[sparky]

John Winthrop: A Modell of Christian Charity, 1630

When the Constitution of the United States was ratified, it did not proclaim to be a document meant to be a universal document for every nation and every people. Allow me to quote the Preamble and bold the pertinent words and let's see if you understand the real founding of America:

John writes in the typical medival vernacular , what comes through is how theocratically indoctrinated this era was, and how carefully he posed his stance avioding heracy.....

History shows that once you mix races, religions, political viewpoints, sexual orientations, creeds, and so forth, the civilization collapses.

Rather evident human nature, even to those such as myself who lack historic knowledge....

Dred Scott devotes more than 20 pages to our founding, history, immigration and citizenship

One wonders what Dred's take on the 'wall' would have been?

~S~

 

[Flash]

It was fine for people to come here in the past. However, nowadays with 330 million we are pretty much full. We should end all immigration now.

Besides, when people came here in the past it was for opportunity. Nowadays they come here to sign up for our filthy ass welfare state. Big difference.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It was fine for people to come here in the past. However, nowadays with 330 million we are pretty much full. We should end all immigration now.

Besides, when people came here in the past it was for opportunity. Nowadays they come here to sign up for our filthy ass welfare state. Big difference.

I think most would agree; however, do they really know what immigration is?

According to Black's Law Dictionary immigration is people leaving their country to enter another for permanent residence. The problem we make in this battle is to try to control the flow of people via some non-existent (constitutionally speaking) "legal" process.

With that in mind, I'm wondering why Trump don't call for a National Emergency against ALL immigration (see the above definition) for a six month period OR until such time Congress delivers an immigration bill both Houses of Congress will approve. If they still cannot do it, Trump could extend the Order. That would give BICE an opportunity to catch up on paperwork.

 

[Flash]

It was fine for people to come here in the past. However, nowadays with 330 million we are pretty much full. We should end all immigration now.

Besides, when people came here in the past it was for opportunity. Nowadays they come here to sign up for our filthy ass welfare state. Big difference.

I think most would agree; however, do they really know what immigration is?

According to Black's Law Dictionary immigration is people leaving their country to enter another for permanent residence. The problem we make in this battle is to try to control the flow of people via some non-existent (constitutionally speaking) "legal" process.

With that in mind, I'm wondering why Trump don't call for a National Emergency against ALL immigration (see the above definition) for a six month period OR until such time Congress delivers an immigration bill both Houses of Congress will approve. If they still cannot do it, Trump could extend the Order. That would give BICE an opportunity to catch up on paperwork.

I agree. I actually think Trump is weak on immigration. He is a million times better than any filthy Democrat and most Republicans but there is a lot more that he could be doing.

 

[Crepitus]

are they no more native then someone who was born here yesterday?

You start looking at things like that and the only place people are actually native to is the great rift valley in Africa.

It appears to me that we are getting too philosophical of the past.

Regardless of who was here first, the United States was founded by a certain people. Maybe they were not the first to come here, but they did not find a civilized people and the colonists claimed the land by Right of Conquest which was accepted international law until 1974 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314. Since our Constitution prohibits the passage of ex post facto laws (Clause 3 Article I Section 9 of the Constitution) our government would never contemplate any legal challenge as to who the rightful owners of the United States really are.

The best summation of our history relative to immigration and citizenship I've ever read in a condensed form is the obiter dictum in the case of Dred Scott v Sanford of 1857.

Obiter dictum is the judge's opinion and expressions of how he / she arrived at their conclusions about the law in a given case. In this case, the man who wrote the majority opinion was Chief Justice Roger Taney. While many people are attracted to the idea of reading the summary of the case and thinking it's all about slavery, the obiter dictum in Dred Scott devotes more than 20 pages to our founding, history, immigration and citizenship. I've posted the link many times, but never had anyone actually post and say they accessed and read it:

Scott v. Sandford

If you ever actually read that case, you get a whole different perspective about our laws on this subject.

Oh, you weren't discussing, you were justifying!

Why didn't you say so?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

are they no more native then someone who was born here yesterday?

You start looking at things like that and the only place people are actually native to is the great rift valley in Africa.

It appears to me that we are getting too philosophical of the past.

Regardless of who was here first, the United States was founded by a certain people. Maybe they were not the first to come here, but they did not find a civilized people and the colonists claimed the land by Right of Conquest which was accepted international law until 1974 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314. Since our Constitution prohibits the passage of ex post facto laws (Clause 3 Article I Section 9 of the Constitution) our government would never contemplate any legal challenge as to who the rightful owners of the United States really are.

The best summation of our history relative to immigration and citizenship I've ever read in a condensed form is the obiter dictum in the case of Dred Scott v Sanford of 1857.

Obiter dictum is the judge's opinion and expressions of how he / she arrived at their conclusions about the law in a given case. In this case, the man who wrote the majority opinion was Chief Justice Roger Taney. While many people are attracted to the idea of reading the summary of the case and thinking it's all about slavery, the obiter dictum in Dred Scott devotes more than 20 pages to our founding, history, immigration and citizenship. I've posted the link many times, but never had anyone actually post and say they accessed and read it:

Scott v. Sandford

If you ever actually read that case, you get a whole different perspective about our laws on this subject.

Oh, you weren't discussing, you were justifying!

Why didn't you say so?

Justifying what?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It was fine for people to come here in the past. However, nowadays with 330 million we are pretty much full. We should end all immigration now.

Besides, when people came here in the past it was for opportunity. Nowadays they come here to sign up for our filthy ass welfare state. Big difference.

I think most would agree; however, do they really know what immigration is?

According to Black's Law Dictionary immigration is people leaving their country to enter another for permanent residence. The problem we make in this battle is to try to control the flow of people via some non-existent (constitutionally speaking) "legal" process.

With that in mind, I'm wondering why Trump don't call for a National Emergency against ALL immigration (see the above definition) for a six month period OR until such time Congress delivers an immigration bill both Houses of Congress will approve. If they still cannot do it, Trump could extend the Order. That would give BICE an opportunity to catch up on paperwork.

I agree. I actually think Trump is weak on immigration. He is a million times better than any filthy Democrat and most Republicans but there is a lot more that he could be doing.

The focus is wrong. Outside of calling for a National Emergency on all immigration, the balance of the solutions rests with the individual, not the government. Government cannot and will not resolve the debacle. If we keep thinking this is a job for government, we're going to wake up one day and be slaves in the country our ancestors fought, bled and died to build.

FWIW, this is not some simplistic and unrealistic nutjob idea like a call to arms either.