What is White Supremacy?

[Porter Rockwell]

"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.

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.

"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.

Yeah, that's why those like you fry yourselves trying to look like us. I am completely right. Your argument is bullshit and you are a dumb racist pos. If the 14th amendment is illegal, take your case to the nation.

I don't fry myself. My wife said I look 15 years younger than her ex and he is two years younger than me.

 

[IM2]

I 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?

It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said

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

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

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:

https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity

... 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.) .

I never said anything of the kind.

There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.

Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?

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.

And black people are responsible for this how?

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.

Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.

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.

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.

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?"

You were not quoted out of context. I will let other posters decide that.

You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.

 

[IM2]

"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.

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.

"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.

Yeah, that's why those like you fry yourselves trying to look like us. I am completely right. Your argument is bullshit and you are a dumb racist pos. If the 14th amendment is illegal, take your case to the nation.

I don't fry myself. My wife said I look 15 years younger than her ex and he is two years younger than me.

The tanning industry earns @5 billion annually. That's how much whites pay to turn brown.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I 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?

It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said

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:

https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity

I never said anything of the kind.
Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?
And black people are responsible for this how?
Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.

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.

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.

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?"

You were not quoted out of context. I will let other posters decide that.

You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.

I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight. You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity. You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.

 

[IM2]

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

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

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

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

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

"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.

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.

You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.

I don't care how you see it. Anybody can research it. Your interpretation shows you can't read.

Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You do NOT have unalienable Rights today. The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.

You are simply uneducated.

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.

"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.

Yeah, that's why those like you fry yourselves trying to look like us. I am completely right. Your argument is bullshit and you are a dumb racist pos. If the 14th amendment is illegal, take your case to the nation.

I don't fry myself. My wife said I look 15 years younger than her ex and he is two years younger than me.

The tanning industry earns @5 billion annually. That's how much whites pay to turn brown.

Lots of white people hate themselves and wannabe something they aren't. I still recall a white chick got outed as NAACP leader when it was revealed she wasn't black at all.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

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

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

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

"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.

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.

You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.

I don't care how you see it. Anybody can research it. Your interpretation shows you can't read.

Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.

The United States Supreme Court is rigged. You come here bitching day in and day out. You could go to court yourself. But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck. If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.

 

[Denizen]

Your cat and mouse have conspired.

 

[IM2]

It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said

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

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.

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.

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?"

You were not quoted out of context. I will let other posters decide that.

You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.

I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight. You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity. You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.

You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are illegal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.

I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.

And I am going to continue.

 

[IM2]

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

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

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

"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.

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.

You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.

I don't care how you see it. Anybody can research it. Your interpretation shows you can't read.

Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.

The United States Supreme Court is rigged. You come here bitching day in and day out. You could go to court yourself. But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck. If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.

From where I sit, you're the one bitching. When I see a problem I go to the appropriate source. This is why I was able to force the place I live to change city policy. You are talking about a constitutional amendment being illegal. Take the appropriate steps to challenge it or STFU. It's just that simple. The courts aren't rigged against whites. Ask Abigail Fischer who had a claim heard by the SCOTUS twice. I don't think anybody black or not white has been able to do this. You apparently know that your lunacy would be immediately discarded because your claim is fake news.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

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?"

You were not quoted out of context. I will let other posters decide that.

You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.

I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight. You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity. You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.

You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.

I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.

And I am going to continue.

I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.


They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts. The facts are facts. They have no agenda. You do. The first Naturalization Act says what it says. If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.

I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.) When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.

But, like I told you. I don't give a shit who believes what. I can tell people the truth and that's it. Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.

You're not too retired or doing so good. You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience. If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"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.

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.

You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.

I don't care how you see it. Anybody can research it. Your interpretation shows you can't read.

Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.

The United States Supreme Court is rigged. You come here bitching day in and day out. You could go to court yourself. But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck. If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.

From where I sit, you're the one bitching. When I see a problem I go to the appropriate source. This is why I was able to force the place I live to change city policy. You are talking about a constitutional amendment being illegal. Take the appropriate steps to challenge it or STFU. It's just that simple. The courts aren't rigged against whites. Ask Abigail Fischer who had a claim heard by the SCOTUS twice. I don't think anybody black or not white has been able to do this. You apparently know that your lunacy would be immediately discarded because your claim is fake news.

Son I haven't been bitching about anything save of the lazy ass whites that don't get out, get involved, get a job, get educated and quit following political propaganda prostitutes around.

Insofar as my work, you keep telling me to go to court, but your dumb ass never has. There is no point me going to court. Those guys are legislating from the bench and most of them would shit on the Constitution.

 

[protectionist]

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

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

"Red people" were killing red people for centuries before any whites arrived in northern America.

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.

I have long ago posted posts on this subject, educating airheads like you. Look them up.

Why look them up? You're justifying why whites came here and killed red people.

If you looked up those posts, you'd know what you're talking about. Who knows, Maybe you're getting paid to come in here and make fool out of yourself.

 

[protectionist]

Whites were killing each other in Europe. STFU protectionist.

Unrelated information, Mr Deflection.

No, it's related. Why travel the ocean blue to kill strangers when Europeans were having so much fun killing their neighbors?

1.They didn't kill strangers except in self-defense. Most Indians never laid eyes on a white person. Most interracial relations were peaceful, including thousands of Indian-white marriages.


2. The arrival of Europeans was the best thing that ever happened to American Indians. Go ask them if they would like to give up living in buildings with indoor plumbing, electricity, heat and AC, TV, stereos, computers, etc, and go back to living like their stone age ancestors.

 

[protectionist]

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 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.

This sounds more indicative of Islam.

Islam and Christianity are running neck and neck in the evil department.

Not many things dumber than equating peace & love Christianity, with war & hate Islam. .

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.[/QUOTE

I

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 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.

This sounds more indicative of Islam.

Islam and Christianity are running neck and neck in the evil department.

Not many things dumber than equating peace & love Christianity, with war & hate Islam. .

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.

You called Islam a "religion. Stupid.

you called Islam a religion. That's very dumb.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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

Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans? And YOU?

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

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

Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates. The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded. They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.

But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action? Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that the act that caused the harm is unlawful and that affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm

In law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause.
​

Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors. The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement. They select her over you. From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they desired, not required.

So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.

 

[gtopa1]

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.

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?"

You were not quoted out of context. I will let other posters decide that.

You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.

I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight. You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity. You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.

You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.

I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.

And I am going to continue.

I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.


They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts. The facts are facts. They have no agenda. You do. The first Naturalization Act says what it says. If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.

I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.) When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.

But, like I told you. I don't give a shit who believes what. I can tell people the truth and that's it. Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.

You're not too retired or doing so good. You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience. If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.

"Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc."

You sure about that, chief??

Greg

 

[IM2]

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.

You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.

I don't care how you see it. Anybody can research it. Your interpretation shows you can't read.

Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.

The United States Supreme Court is rigged. You come here bitching day in and day out. You could go to court yourself. But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck. If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.

From where I sit, you're the one bitching. When I see a problem I go to the appropriate source. This is why I was able to force the place I live to change city policy. You are talking about a constitutional amendment being illegal. Take the appropriate steps to challenge it or STFU. It's just that simple. The courts aren't rigged against whites. Ask Abigail Fischer who had a claim heard by the SCOTUS twice. I don't think anybody black or not white has been able to do this. You apparently know that your lunacy would be immediately discarded because your claim is fake news.

Son I haven't been bitching about anything save of the lazy ass whites that don't get out, get involved, get a job, get educated and quit following political propaganda prostitutes around.

Insofar as my work, you keep telling me to go to court, but your dumb ass never has. There is no point me going to court. Those guys are legislating from the bench and most of them would shit on the Constitution.

You are bitching. That's all your claim is. You don't go to court because you know that crazy mess you believe would get thrown out. You have no understanding of the constitution.

 

[IM2]

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.

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?"

You were not quoted out of context. I will let other posters decide that.

You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.

I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight. You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity. You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.

You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.

I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.

And I am going to continue.

I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.


They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts. The facts are facts. They have no agenda. You do. The first Naturalization Act says what it says. If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.

I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.) When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.

But, like I told you. I don't give a shit who believes what. I can tell people the truth and that's it. Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.

You're not too retired or doing so good. You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience. If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.

Except you aren't quoting the facts and you're the one with an agenda. I think I know what my personal situation is. You are the one with the circus son, and I've been on TV/Radio. I have been able to bring suburban whites into the middle of the hood so they can understand what damage racism has caused. If we ever debate, I'm going to school you. Because you're a clown trying to peddle race baited garbage the constitution was ratified to end. Unalienable rights can't be taken and all the government did was insure everybody, not just whites, were able to enjoy those rights. There are not two classes, nothing you said was true.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

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.-"

There is a lot to unpack in your comment and I don't have time right now to give it the indepth consideration I want but I will at least start with this.

According to the dictionaries I've reviewed, inalienable and unalienable have the same meaning

inalienable
adjective
not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable:

unalienable
adjective
not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable:
Inherent in the U.S. Constitution is the belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom.
Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com​

Natural rights which are rights we each have just by virtue of having been born, are endowed by our Creator and cannot be legislatively taken, although they can be infringed upon, are what I believe the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to which you refer. Among them are the right to life, to liberty and to defend one's life.

And while the first ten amendmentts to the U.S. Constitution, collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights acknowledges and enumerates specific rights which the government is prohibited from violating in regards to the "People of the United States" these prohibitions do not apply only to natural or unalienable rights.

For example, the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law. This amendment would seem to uphold the original assertion that life and liberty in the very least are the natural/unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and shall not be infringed.

On the other hand, I cannot recall ever seeing an argument made that the right to a speedy trial, to face one's accusors, etc. mandated by the 6th amendment is a Creator endowed natural inalienable right that shall not be infringed. I believe a variety of our national security codes and statutes very effectively infringe upon this right. The same can be said for the 1st Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These are not natural Creator endowed rights, they are rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Same for the right to vote via the 24th amendment.

Anyway getting back to the 14th amendment so I can get some sleep, as you already know, the 14th amendment was passed primarily to remedy the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which stated that people of African descent could not be citizens even if they were freedmen and had never been slaves. For the adults who were brought here there was no path to citizenship however the 14th amendment gave those people of African descent who were born in the United States, even if they were originally born into slavery, a path to citizenship.

On July 28, 1868, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.​

So how is citizenship an inalienable natural Creator given right? No one has a natural Creator given right to be an American citizen, it's a Constitutional right.

Citizen is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. A person may have multiple citizenships.​

You have expressed that if you could have your way the 14th amendment would be recinded. If so, you would get rid of (deport) all people who were born here but who are not white as the original founders wanted?