What is White Supremacy?

[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?

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.

Idiot..i was quoting you!
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 a quote of me. SHOW it. Then apologize, you clumsy oaf.

As for who is perpetuating racism, you are, and your grabby, racist buddies here who all support Affirmative Action, while you mock its victims.

Blame ? It's for you.

You..Porter..same ole..same ole. But sure..sorry for getting the wrong racist idiot. Still...it was your comrade in supremacy that brought up blame..and you just ran with it.

You are the "same ole - same ole." When you draw simplistic conclusions based upon a few paragraphs on the Internet, that is damn foolish. I do not "blame" anyone except those in power. However, the non-whites were not reluctant to become opportunists and feed off that which government wrongfully took from the haves to give to have nots... and joined in the efforts to take advantage of government thievery. It's kind of like the non-whites receiving stolen property.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.

Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race. It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our unalienable Rights. Different topic, but here is what is relevant:

Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners. Now, remember, the law must apply equally to all - no exceptions.

Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc. You're going to deport them? Really? You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "Illegal" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans. Some days you just have to be realistic.

 

[protectionist]

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?

I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.

Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race. It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our unalienable Rights. Different topic, but here is what is relevant:

Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners. Now, remember, the law must apply equally to all - no exceptions.

Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc. You're going to deport them? Really? You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "Illegal" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans. Some days you just have to be realistic.

I don't know the occupational status of anchor babies (now adults). I have seen no research or anything about that. Without it, just off the cuff, I would guess the occupational levels of these people is not like what you describe.

In any case, I would deport anyone born here from noncitizen parents, and this is not a reinterpretation of the Constitution. It is what the 14th amendment was in initially, and what it still is. Those who created the anchor baby phenomenon, are the ones who reinterpretated.

If Jacob Howard were here now, I sense he would disallow kids of foreigners protection of the 14th amendment, exactly as he stated it when he authored the amendment in 1866.

Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Jacob_Merritt_Howard.png

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.

Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race. It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our unalienable Rights. Different topic, but here is what is relevant:

Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners. Now, remember, the law must apply equally to all - no exceptions.

Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc. You're going to deport them? Really? You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "Illegal" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans. Some days you just have to be realistic.

I don't know the occupational status of anchor babies (now adults). I have seen no research or anything about that. Without it, just off the cuff, I would guess the occupational levels of these people is not like what you describe.

In any case, I would deport anyone born here from noncitizen parents, and this is not a reinterpretation of the Constitution. It is what the 14th amendment was in initially, and what it still is. Those who created the anchor baby phenomenon, are the ones who reinterpretated.

If Jacob Howard were here now, I sense he would disallow kids of foreigners protection of the 14th amendment, exactly as he stated it when he authored the amendment in 1866.

Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Jacob_Merritt_Howard.png

You are wrong on three counts:

1) It is not the job of the legislative branch of government to interpret the law. The legislative branch should have worded their Amendment better as only the judicial branch of government can interpret the law and they've done so. To date, not even Jesus has over-ruled the federal courts on constitutional interpretation unless it was by way of another Amendment

2) The first casualty of the war in Iraq was an undocumented foreigner who was living in the county I live in. His family was given citizenship as a result of his actions. There is a cop in my neighborhood whose father was undocumented, but his deportation might be listed under civic improvement and I can assure you that there are military officers and government officials whose parents entered the U.S. without papers

3) The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and its real purpose was to disenfranchise you. It's just like background checks on firearms. Nobody gives a shit about saving lives or reducing gun violence. People hate guns and think only the police and military ought to have them. Politicians tell you what you want to hear and we don't give it a second thought.

You can brush your teeth with Drano. They will get white, but your body will be poisoned. Bear this in mind: for everything you gain, there is something lost. What you are giving up is greater than what you think is going to happen.

If you don't listen to reason, that's your burden to bear. But, be sensible. Look at what happened when it was undocumented families being deported. The people may have said one thing in polling, but in practice, it was a different story. When you start deporting people who were born here and grew up here to some country not obligated to take them, the backlash will end what little advantage conservatives have. There are better alternatives.

 

[protectionist]

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?

I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.

Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race. It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our unalienable Rights. Different topic, but here is what is relevant:

Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners. Now, remember, the law must apply equally to all - no exceptions.

Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc. You're going to deport them? Really? You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "Illegal" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans. Some days you just have to be realistic.

I don't know the occupational status of anchor babies (now adults). I have seen no research or anything about that. Without it, just off the cuff, I would guess the occupational levels of these people is not like what you describe.

In any case, I would deport anyone born here from noncitizen parents, and this is not a reinterpretation of the Constitution. It is what the 14th amendment was in initially, and what it still is. Those who created the anchor baby phenomenon, are the ones who reinterpretated.

If Jacob Howard were here now, I sense he would disallow kids of foreigners protection of the 14th amendment, exactly as he stated it when he authored the amendment in 1866.

Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Jacob_Merritt_Howard.png

You are wrong on three counts:

1) It is not the job of the legislative branch of government to interpret the law. The legislative branch should have worded their Amendment better as only the judicial branch of government can interpret the law and they've done so. To date, not even Jesus has over-ruled the federal courts on constitutional interpretation unless it was by way of another Amendment

2) The first casualty of the war in Iraq was an undocumented foreigner who was living in the county I live in. His family was given citizenship as a result of his actions. There is a cop in my neighborhood whose father was undocumented, but his deportation might be listed under civic improvement and I can assure you that there are military officers and government officials whose parents entered the U.S. without papers

3) The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and its real purpose was to disenfranchise you. It's just like background checks on firearms. Nobody gives a shit about saving lives or reducing gun violence. People hate guns and think only the police and military ought to have them. Politicians tell you what you want to hear and we don't give it a second thought.

You can brush your teeth with Drano. They will get white, but your body will be poisoned. Bear this in mind: for everything you gain, there is something lost. What you are giving up is greater than what you think is going to happen.

If you don't listen to reason, that's your burden to bear. But, be sensible. Look at what happened when it was undocumented families being deported. The people may have said one thing in polling, but in practice, it was a different story. When you start deporting people who were born here and grew up here to some country not obligated to take them, the backlash will end what little advantage conservatives have. There are better alternatives.

I do not address anything using the false word "undocumented. Everyone has ID of some kind. Everyone has documents . If you receive a utility bill you have a document.

I'm talking about filthy Invaders, who disrespected our laws and us, and are ILLEGAL ALIENS, and any of these jobs you mention them having is one more job taken away from an American (of any race).

In 1954, President Eisenhower deported massive numbers of illegal aliens in Operation Wetback. Many of the men were shipped to Vera Cruz, and just dumped into the shallow water.

The Mexican govt and politicians protested furiously. Eisenhower paid no attention to them.

What's needed now is Operation Wetback 2, and Jacob Howard's intent fulfilled properly.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.

Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race. It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our unalienable Rights. Different topic, but here is what is relevant:

Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners. Now, remember, the law must apply equally to all - no exceptions.

Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc. You're going to deport them? Really? You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "Illegal" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans. Some days you just have to be realistic.

I don't know the occupational status of anchor babies (now adults). I have seen no research or anything about that. Without it, just off the cuff, I would guess the occupational levels of these people is not like what you describe.

In any case, I would deport anyone born here from noncitizen parents, and this is not a reinterpretation of the Constitution. It is what the 14th amendment was in initially, and what it still is. Those who created the anchor baby phenomenon, are the ones who reinterpretated.

If Jacob Howard were here now, I sense he would disallow kids of foreigners protection of the 14th amendment, exactly as he stated it when he authored the amendment in 1866.

Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Jacob_Merritt_Howard.png

You are wrong on three counts:

1) It is not the job of the legislative branch of government to interpret the law. The legislative branch should have worded their Amendment better as only the judicial branch of government can interpret the law and they've done so. To date, not even Jesus has over-ruled the federal courts on constitutional interpretation unless it was by way of another Amendment

2) The first casualty of the war in Iraq was an undocumented foreigner who was living in the county I live in. His family was given citizenship as a result of his actions. There is a cop in my neighborhood whose father was undocumented, but his deportation might be listed under civic improvement and I can assure you that there are military officers and government officials whose parents entered the U.S. without papers

3) The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and its real purpose was to disenfranchise you. It's just like background checks on firearms. Nobody gives a shit about saving lives or reducing gun violence. People hate guns and think only the police and military ought to have them. Politicians tell you what you want to hear and we don't give it a second thought.

You can brush your teeth with Drano. They will get white, but your body will be poisoned. Bear this in mind: for everything you gain, there is something lost. What you are giving up is greater than what you think is going to happen.

If you don't listen to reason, that's your burden to bear. But, be sensible. Look at what happened when it was undocumented families being deported. The people may have said one thing in polling, but in practice, it was a different story. When you start deporting people who were born here and grew up here to some country not obligated to take them, the backlash will end what little advantage conservatives have. There are better alternatives.

I do not address anything using the false word "undocumented. Everyone has ID of some kind. Everyone has documents . If you receive a utility bill you have a document.

I'm talking about filthy Invaders, who disrespected our laws and us, and are ILLEGAL ALIENS, and any of these jobs you mention them having is one more job taken away from an American (of any race).

In 1954, President Eisenhower deported massive numbers of illegal aliens in Operation Wetback. Many of the men were shipped to Vera Cruz, and just dumped into the shallow water.

The Mexican govt and politicians protested furiously. Eisenhower paid no attention to them.

What's needed now is Operation Wetback 2, and Jacob Howard's intent fulfilled properly.

I really wish my own countrymen would learn a little about the law. I had to fight a case against the so - called "Patriot Act" for three years. That was a Tea Party endorsed bill. Name calling might make you feel good, but once you've been a defendant and your friends throw you under the bus, you begin to have a whole different respect for the concept of a presumption of innocence.

I was looking at 25 years in the hoosegow. The bad thing about the law is that it cuts both ways. BTW, before the right got involved, many Americans were exiting the system and getting rid of all those human registration papers. I tried to Google it, but it's covered up pretty good. My father died without an SSN, bank account, etc. and his 1.5 million dollar estate was successfully probated and the inheritors got their money. I was damn lucky to have won my case, but it shows that you won't take a fool's advice until you've been a fool yourself.

I wish I could make you understand how easy it is to end up being presumed guilty of a crime. Imagine me. The cops said they had a warrant for my arrest and I couldn't believe my ears. I had not so much as spit on a sidewalk.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Why would you have any trouble getting jobs, when you're black, and can get AA ?

This is how you sound: "Why would you have any trouble getting [blank] when you're disabled and can get social security/disability benefits?"

People don't "get" AA.

Often, "people" don't get AA, when only blacks do. In some cases, other non-whites do, and women do. But blacks always can get it.

Anyone who gets it, does it unscrupuously, knowing many others are unfairly being denied. It is similar to theft.

You are so stupid lol.

 

[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.

I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are. I also blame those who willingly receive it.

Instead, they could do what I have always done. Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.

You didn't explain how you would determine who suffered harm from affirmative action so that they could be paid "reparations" via a lawsuit. You can't get from A to Z without going through the entire alphabet at least in this case, so state your case.

 

[protectionist]

. 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.

I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are. I also blame those who willingly receive it.

Instead, they could do what I have always done. Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.

You didn't explain how you would determine who suffered harm from affirmative action so that they could be paid "reparations" via a lawsuit. You can't get from A to Z without going through the entire alphabet at least in this case, so state your case.

Every person who was discriminated against by AA, ie. Every white person and everyone who did not fill out an AA questionnaire, plus anyone else was denied something, based on an AA program.

If you think that would be difficult, that's just another example of your incompetence. And you still haven't answered my questions, or taken my quizzes. Get to work.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my case, the harm was 40 years of being deprived of a career, plus 5 years of college down the drain. Add to that numerous jobs lost.

Then you should be able to quantify that in monetary amounts with supporting documention correct? Becasue a nebulous claim of "5 years of college down the drain" and "40 years of being deprived of a career" is not adequate. Nobody is GUARANTEED the career of their choice, especially if for whatever reasons they cannot meet the qualifications to hold that position. On one hand you claim to have had a wildly successful life and career, then on the other you're bitching about "40 years of being deprived of a career". Which is it? And nobody who completes 5 years of college and comes away with at least one degree considers their 5 years of secondary education as having gone down the drain, unless they're a complete idiot. Having a college degree puts you ahead of other candidates that don't have a college degree unless it's a requirement and as long as you don't have any other disqualifiers or red flags in your background.

Lots of people start off down one path and then end up in another or similar field, sometimes for better sometimes for worse. But I would bet my last dollar that any lack of success on your part has more to do with your entitlement mentality than anything that affirmative action has caused. For some reason, you think you should have had a certain life that involved graduate school and being a city planner. If that's what I wanted to do, there is no way I would have let anyone stand in my way and keep me from achieving my goal.

Some info

What you need to know
Overview

Urban and regional planners develop land use plans and programs that help create communities, accommodate population growth and revitalize physical facilities in towns, cities, counties, and metropolitan areas.

What skills are needed?

• Analytical skills: Urban and regional planners analyze information and data from a variety of sources, such as market research studies, censuses, and environmental impact studies. They use statistical techniques and technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in their analyses to determine the significance of the data.
• Communication skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to communicate clearly and effectively because they interact with colleagues and stakeholders, prepare research reports, give presentations, and meet with a wide variety of audiences, including public officials, interest groups, and community members.
• Decision-Making skills: Urban and regional planners must weigh all possible planning options and combine analysis, creativity, and realism to choose the appropriate action or plan.
• Leadership skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to manage projects, which may include overseeing tasks and planning assignments.

What is the pay?
The average pay for urban and regional planners in the United States ranges from $45,180 to $114,170 as of May 2018.

The specific pay depends on factors such as level of experience, education and training, geographic location, and specific industry.

What education is required?
Most urban and regional planners have a master’s degree from an accredited urban or regional planning program. Candidates with a bachelor’s degree typically need work experience in planning, public policy, or a related field.

Master’s degree programs accept students with a wide range of undergraduate backgrounds. However, many candidates who enter these programs have a bachelor’s degree in economics, geography, political science, or environmental design.

Discover some of the courses you will take pursuing a degree in Urban and Regional Planning.​

So take what you've earned over the last 40 years and subtract that on a year-by-year basis from what you would have earned as a city planner and you start to come up with your claimed damages. Can you do that?

 

[protectionist]

I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.

Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race. It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our unalienable Rights. Different topic, but here is what is relevant:

Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners. Now, remember, the law must apply equally to all - no exceptions.

Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc. You're going to deport them? Really? You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "Illegal" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans. Some days you just have to be realistic.

I don't know the occupational status of anchor babies (now adults). I have seen no research or anything about that. Without it, just off the cuff, I would guess the occupational levels of these people is not like what you describe.

In any case, I would deport anyone born here from noncitizen parents, and this is not a reinterpretation of the Constitution. It is what the 14th amendment was in initially, and what it still is. Those who created the anchor baby phenomenon, are the ones who reinterpretated.

If Jacob Howard were here now, I sense he would disallow kids of foreigners protection of the 14th amendment, exactly as he stated it when he authored the amendment in 1866.

Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Jacob_Merritt_Howard.png

You are wrong on three counts:

1) It is not the job of the legislative branch of government to interpret the law. The legislative branch should have worded their Amendment better as only the judicial branch of government can interpret the law and they've done so. To date, not even Jesus has over-ruled the federal courts on constitutional interpretation unless it was by way of another Amendment

2) The first casualty of the war in Iraq was an undocumented foreigner who was living in the county I live in. His family was given citizenship as a result of his actions. There is a cop in my neighborhood whose father was undocumented, but his deportation might be listed under civic improvement and I can assure you that there are military officers and government officials whose parents entered the U.S. without papers

3) The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and its real purpose was to disenfranchise you. It's just like background checks on firearms. Nobody gives a shit about saving lives or reducing gun violence. People hate guns and think only the police and military ought to have them. Politicians tell you what you want to hear and we don't give it a second thought.

You can brush your teeth with Drano. They will get white, but your body will be poisoned. Bear this in mind: for everything you gain, there is something lost. What you are giving up is greater than what you think is going to happen.

If you don't listen to reason, that's your burden to bear. But, be sensible. Look at what happened when it was undocumented families being deported. The people may have said one thing in polling, but in practice, it was a different story. When you start deporting people who were born here and grew up here to some country not obligated to take them, the backlash will end what little advantage conservatives have. There are better alternatives.

I do not address anything using the false word "undocumented. Everyone has ID of some kind. Everyone has documents . If you receive a utility bill you have a document.

I'm talking about filthy Invaders, who disrespected our laws and us, and are ILLEGAL ALIENS, and any of these jobs you mention them having is one more job taken away from an American (of any race).

In 1954, President Eisenhower deported massive numbers of illegal aliens in Operation Wetback. Many of the men were shipped to Vera Cruz, and just dumped into the shallow water.

The Mexican govt and politicians protested furiously. Eisenhower paid no attention to them.

What's needed now is Operation Wetback 2, and Jacob Howard's intent fulfilled properly.

I really wish my own countrymen would learn a little about the law. I had to fight a case against the so - called "Patriot Act" for three years. That was a Tea Party endorsed bill. Name calling might make you feel good, but once you've been a defendant and your friends throw you under the bus, you begin to have a whole different respect for the concept of a presumption of innocence.

I was looking at 25 years in the hoosegow. The bad thing about the law is that it cuts both ways. BTW, before the right got involved, many Americans were exiting the system and getting rid of all those human registration papers. I tried to Google it, but it's covered up pretty good. My father died without an SSN, bank account, etc. and his 1.5 million dollar estate was successfully probated and the inheritors got their money. I was damn lucky to have won my case, but it shows that you won't take a fool's advice until you've been a fool yourself.

I wish I could make you understand how easy it is to end up being presumed guilty of a crime. Imagine me. The cops said they had a warrant for my arrest and I couldn't believe my ears. I had not so much as spit on a sidewalk.

I once got accused of a crime. I fought it in court myself and I beat it.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

You are very strange and it sounds like you're becoming afraid of me

Good.

Just a side note....Your tribute to the Tuskegee air men is to be commended. A few years ago I saw a documentary celebrating their contributions to the war and was in complete awe of their record of service and how those black heros, those second class citizen, monkeys, coons, etc....flew side by side with white bomber pilots, protected them and never lost one single mission of attack while doing so. They were so good in fact, that white pilots requested them by unit...God bless your grandfather for his service and you should be proud as should all black americans, sir!!

Thank you so much, I do appreciate your kindness.

I'm female as well, by the way ;-)

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.

Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you. Which cases?

 

[protectionist]

In my case, the harm was 40 years of being deprived of a career, plus 5 years of college down the drain. Add to that numerous jobs lost.

Then you should be able to quantify that in monetary amounts with supporting documention correct? Becasue a nebulous claim of "5 years of college down the drain" and "40 years of being deprived of a career" is not adequate. Nobody is GUARANTEED the career of their choice, especially if for whatever reasons they cannot meet the qualifications to hold that position. On one hand you claim to have had a wildly successful life and career, then on the other you're bitching about "40 years of being deprived of a career". Which is it? And nobody who completes 5 years of college and comes away with at least one degree considers their 5 years of secondary education as having gone down the drain, unless they're a complete idiot. Having a college degree puts you ahead of other candidates that don't have a college degree unless it's a requirement and as long as you don't have any other disqualifiers or red flags in your background.

Lots of people start off down one path and then end up in another or similar field, sometimes for better sometimes for worse. But I would bet my last dollar that any lack of success on your part has more to do with your entitlement mentality than anything that affirmative action has caused. For some reason, you think you should have had a certain life that involved graduate school and being a city planner. If that's what I wanted to do, there is no way I would have let anyone stand in my way and keep me from achieving my goal.

Some info

View attachment 301826
What you need to know
Overview

Urban and regional planners develop land use plans and programs that help create communities, accommodate population growth and revitalize physical facilities in towns, cities, counties, and metropolitan areas.

What skills are needed?

• Analytical skills: Urban and regional planners analyze information and data from a variety of sources, such as market research studies, censuses, and environmental impact studies. They use statistical techniques and technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in their analyses to determine the significance of the data.
• Communication skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to communicate clearly and effectively because they interact with colleagues and stakeholders, prepare research reports, give presentations, and meet with a wide variety of audiences, including public officials, interest groups, and community members.
• Decision-Making skills: Urban and regional planners must weigh all possible planning options and combine analysis, creativity, and realism to choose the appropriate action or plan.
• Leadership skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to manage projects, which may include overseeing tasks and planning assignments.

What is the pay?
The average pay for urban and regional planners in the United States ranges from $45,180 to $114,170 as of May 2018.

The specific pay depends on factors such as level of experience, education and training, geographic location, and specific industry.

What education is required?
Most urban and regional planners have a master’s degree from an accredited urban or regional planning program. Candidates with a bachelor’s degree typically need work experience in planning, public policy, or a related field.

Master’s degree programs accept students with a wide range of undergraduate backgrounds. However, many candidates who enter these programs have a bachelor’s degree in economics, geography, political science, or environmental design.

Discover some of the courses you will take pursuing a degree in Urban and Regional Planning.​

So take what you've earned over the last 40 years and subtract that on a year-by-year basis from what you would have earned as a city planner and you start to come up with your claimed damages. Can you do that?

1. I don't respond to posts this long
2. I don't even read them
3. It's your turn to answer MY questions, Ms Question Mark

 

[IM2]

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.

You are very strange and it sounds like you're becoming afraid of me

Good.

Just a side note....Your tribute to the Tuskegee air men is to be commended. A few years ago I saw a documentary celebrating their contributions to the war and was in complete awe of their record of service and how those black heros, those second class citizen, monkeys, coons, etc....flew side by side with white bomber pilots, protected them and never lost one single mission of attack while doing so. They were so good in fact, that white pilots requested them by unit...God bless your grandfather for his service and you should be proud as should all black americans, sir!!

AMEN!

 

[protectionist]

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.

You are very strange and it sounds like you're becoming afraid of me

Good.

Just a side note....Your tribute to the Tuskegee air men is to be commended. A few years ago I saw a documentary celebrating their contributions to the war and was in complete awe of their record of service and how those black heros, those second class citizen, monkeys, coons, etc....flew side by side with white bomber pilots, protected them and never lost one single mission of attack while doing so. They were so good in fact, that white pilots requested them by unit...God bless your grandfather for his service and you should be proud as should all black americans, sir!!

AMEN!

And you still haven't answered my question about what military service (if any) YOU have accomplished, Mr DODGE.

 

[IM2]

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.

Everything I said was true and the original concept of two classes of citizenship was taught by accredited law schools only a quarter of a century ago. You've done nothing save of social media and made a career of hate.

Drapetomania was also taught as a legitimate medical disorder too. You and no protection are the only ones that hate around here. Your argument is a load of Georgia southern white racist bullshit. I'm quite sure that was taught in southern law schools with the rest of that lost cause crap. Now go take your claim to the supreme court since it's so true.

 

[IM2]

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.

I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.

No you don't. Now since you have won 2 supreme court cases, you should have the standing to argue the case for the repeal of the 14th amendment.

 

[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.

I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are. I also blame those who willingly receive it.

Instead, they could do what I have always done. Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.

You are so full of shit. I just checked on the City of Treasure Island's website and they have an open position for a city planner. I examined their employment application and there is NOTHING in it that requires a candidate to indicate their protected class status AS WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL ALONG. This is the only reference to EEO in the application

The City has an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy posted in the Human Resources Office. We believe that one of our greatest strengths as an organization is the diversity of our people.

Persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will also be checked for the following: Driver License check; local, state, and national criminal history record check; verification of all information on application; background investigation that includes interviews with previous employers and others who can attest to your work habits, qualifications, and character. A credit report may be made for some positions.Among other requirements, persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will:Complete the Immigration & Naturalization Form I-9; be fingerprinted by the City’s Police Department; take an employee loyalty oath; and provide copies of any required licenses or certifications.

The City of Treasure Island collects the social security number of employees and applicants for employment for the following purposes: identification and verification; credit worthiness; benefit processing, and tax reporting. Social security numbers may also be used as a unique numeric identifier and may be used for search purposes.If you have any questions, feel free to ask anyone in the Human Resources Office.​

Hyperlink to the Job Posting
Hyperlink to the Job Appication

 

[IM2]

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

When I have given them the facts about immigration, and I have in more in the field experience from all sides than any man alive today, they reject the facts, ignore the evidence and every thread I participate in becomes a shitstorm.

Try telling people that the public is fickle and you cannot criminalize Liberty, they act as if you just raped their 11 year old daughter. Tell them that coming into the United States without papers is not a crime, but a civil violation of the law and they will send death threats to your house. Remind them that it was the right that created the precedent that allowed sanctuary cities and prevented local governments from enforcing federal gun control laws and they either ignore you or send assassins to your home.

Yeah, they've sent people to shoot into my house. For five years I had a stalker that followed me day and night until I put a bounty out on him and it was substantial. So, yeah, I'm sure about what I'm telling you.

BTW, if you leave the right alone, they are advocating enforcing immigration laws that were designed to dilute the white vote and marginalize the whites. All you have to do is remain silent and they will give America away to foreigners. Just make sure they come in "legally" as the right erroneously calls it. But, yeah, I'm sure of it.

Your threads end up that way because most people don't want to read your white supremacist lunacy. Whites are descendants of immigrants. Your ass is a descendant of immigrants. That's because this was not the white mans land.