Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm well educated. You just posted 1,000 words of bullshit. According to your description of unalienable rights, they are natural god given rights that no law can change. Ever. That means we have them now. Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment was created due to the fact that blacks were denied the very unalienable rights YOU describe."PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."
This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that unalienable Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.
You do NOT have unalienable Rights today. The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.
You are simply uneducated.
"Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"
Dumb racist piece of shit.
You are the one that looks like a turd and smells like one too. And you are wrong.
And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.
Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"
In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?
The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)
I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.
Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
How interesting that you speak of "whites" when talking about blame for slavery, when the particular whites who engaged in it, were only a tiny % of those living in only one section of the US.I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.
Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"
In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?
The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)
I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.
Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
This sounds more indicative of Islam.I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest. Don't bother me with mindless drivel. You are deflecting.
Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist? What is it you are really arguing about? Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
Wow. That was a hard shot. LolI'm well educated. You just posted 1,000 words of bullshit. According to your description of unalienable rights, they are natural god given rights that no law can change. Ever. That means we have them now. Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment was created due to the fact that blacks were denied the very unalienable rights YOU describe."PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."
This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that unalienable Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.
You do NOT have unalienable Rights today. The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.
You are simply uneducated.
"Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"
Dumb racist piece of shit.
You are the one that looks like a turd and smells like one too. And you are wrong.
The only thing you have established is your perverted, malicious willingness to throw millions of people under the bus, to greedily grab whatever you can get.The world is already a better place because men like him exist. You, we've already established, not so much.I don't remember saying that "ANYONE" who's lived between 1961 and 2020 has benefitted from AA.You like to throw the word "proof" around. OK. I'll follow suit. Show a shred of proof that any of my numbers are wrong. G'wan. Do it.None of my numbers are wrong.
Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are a disingenuous liar.
You've been asked for "proof" when you have posted outright lies, which is on a regular basis. And as expected, your only "proof" has been to insist that "what you say" is fact.
Your belief that ANYONE who is black that has lived between 1961 and 2020, has benefitted from AA is a perfect example of the kind of trailer trash stupidity and ignorance that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society.
The world will be a better place when you are no longer here.
In any case, your acceptance of AA, and refusal to acknowledge it's victimization, is an example of the kind of selfish, bottom feeding that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society (if you can even be considered part of US society at all).
The world will be a better place when racists like you are no longer here.
Idiot..i was quoting you!How interesting that you speak of "whites" when talking about blame for slavery, when the particular whites who engaged in it, were only a tiny % of those living in only one section of the US.I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.
Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
Islam and Christianity are running neck and neck in the evil department.This sounds more indicative of Islam.I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest. Don't bother me with mindless drivel. You are deflecting.
Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist? What is it you are really arguing about? Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
So if red people were killing other red people that means it was Good, Moral and Jesus Approved that White Christians travel thousands of miles across the ocean to kill red people, too. Got it.And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.
Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
"Red people" were killing red people for centuries before any whites arrived in northern America.
Not a quote of me. SHOW it. Then apologize, you clumsy oaf.Idiot..i was quoting you!How interesting that you speak of "whites" when talking about blame for slavery, when the particular whites who engaged in it, were only a tiny % of those living in only one section of the US.I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.
Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
You said...
"Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites."
To which I responded..."Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed."
If you want to talk about blaming...well...who benefited from slavery? Whose economy was based on slave labor? What percentage of the GNP of the Southern States was slave-based? Supply and demand, after all, right? I don't blame people long dead for our problems today. I acknowledge their part in the making of our nation, warts and all--but blame? Blame is for people like you..who perpetuate the underlying poison of racism..with subtle and not so subtle spinnings of the truth..in order to justify their continuing sense of victim-hood.
Not many things dumber than equating peace & love Christianity, with war & hate Islam.Islam and Christianity are running neck and neck in the evil department.This sounds more indicative of Islam.I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest. Don't bother me with mindless drivel. You are deflecting.
Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist? What is it you are really arguing about? Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
. 
I have long ago posted posts on this subject, educating airheads like you. Look them up.So if red people were killing other red people that means it was Good, Moral and Jesus Approved that White Christians travel thousands of miles across the ocean to kill red people, too. Got it.And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.
Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
"Red people" were killing red people for centuries before any whites arrived in northern America.
Unrelated information, Mr Deflection.Whites were killing each other in Europe. STFU protectionist.
No, it's related. Why travel the ocean blue to kill strangers when Europeans were having so much fun killing their neighbors?Unrelated information, Mr Deflection.Whites were killing each other in Europe. STFU protectionist.
Why look them up? You're justifying why whites came here and killed red people.I have long ago posted posts on this subject, educating airheads like you. Look them up.So if red people were killing other red people that means it was Good, Moral and Jesus Approved that White Christians travel thousands of miles across the ocean to kill red people, too. Got it.And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
"Red people" were killing red people for centuries before any whites arrived in northern America.
Yes, Christianity colonized the world, bringing its twisted brand of peace and love. There is one difference between Christianity and Islam. Muslims killed for their twisted and evil religion. Christians can hold their heads high. When they killed it was for the noble ends of Greed and Avarice.Not many things dumber than equating peace & love Christianity, with war & hate Islam.Islam and Christianity are running neck and neck in the evil department.This sounds more indicative of Islam.I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist? What is it you are really arguing about? Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of, the entire sentence.It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I saidI just find your attempts to talk down to me repulsive. You said it all when you said:
"I have not read any further than your first statement above..."
You can't debate anything when you're too lazy or ignorant to read. Don't leave us much to converse about, does it?
I have not read any further than your first statement above BECAUSE that [statement] needed to be addressed FIRST and foremost. I'm (sic) address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post. (which I did)So which one of us was too "lazy or ignorant" to read the other's comments? Here's where I addressed the rest of your post as promised
My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is. The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:In terms of raw numbers, the white race is the least (numerically) of the people in the United States. I've said nothing different. The nonwhites outnumber the whites and a subtle form of genocide is being employed
https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity
I never said anything of the kind.... a subtle form of genocide is being employed. There is an assault on the family unit by the masses (as you said mostly non-white.) .
Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.
And black people are responsible for this how?The media attacks whites all day long with tv shows that glorify inter-racial marriages, gay marriage, and whites in heterosexual relationships are portrayed like backward rednecks.
Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.I stand against the 14th Amendment and you try to denigrate me. Well segregation was a reality too until Rosa Parks refused to obey a law she believed to be unconstitutional - as did others who felt the same way. Yet you would deny me that luxury. You would shit on my constitutional Rights and deny them because under that veil of reason and tolerance is just another smooth talking bigot with a hatred of anyone that dares to challenge the status quo.
The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it. More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution. You stating that you are standing against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution.
Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se. Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights. You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place. Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful? And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.
Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.
I quoted what you said. I will know whether or not you're reading what I said after you consider my reply about the 14th Amendment. You can tell everyone from where you get your rights (or Rights) if you're reading the posts. Then you can tell us how it feels to be an equal slave.
The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.
As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"
Ahhh..so that is what you call, 'phasing out". I don't see it that way... I see that clause as affirming the rights of the slave states--and legitimizing the status any slaves imported prior to 1808..Also, the slave population was self-sustaining...thus obviating the need to import.I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.
Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight," Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution
Translation: No future importation or migration of slaves was permitted after 1808. That allowed our country to transition out without flooding the U.S. with former slaves.
You should be asking questions if you don't know this subject. I've been at this since I was a teen - 40 + years ago. If you don't have the facts, you should start studying before challenging someone with real experience. That's sound counsel.
Start here:
https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20
That book will be the best $10 you ever spent if you want to really be in this conversation.
You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.
