Should white people be discriminated?

"Unalienable Rights?" you quote this and then have the gull to comprehend why I mentioned the 9th Amendment? I mentioned the 9th Amendment only because it was the only path you had to relevance. You also confuse Communism with Fascism in the same breath, yet they are polar opposites.

 

Of course it does, try putting it into action and then suggesting otherwise.

 

So you think cracka Americans are being discriminated against?

 

I make no such mistakes there sport. You should ask questions before jumping to conclusions. You don't and had you accessed the links I provided you with, you might have a better knowledge of the issues.

Did you realize that your criticisms of me are ALWAYS predicated upon some B.S. I have never mentioned? You are criticizing your own hypothesis, not anything I've said. You jump to conclusions and never take the time to ascertain the facts. Are you white by any chance? See how I did that?

I said that people accept socialist solutions... I've never referred to fascism - except as the title of a educational video. That is that man's view of a problem I agree with him on. And yes sir, socialism is akin to communism. Russia used to be known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Their form of government was, indeed, communism. Fascism seems to something YOU fret over on a daily basis.

 

I think every one in the US is getting and giving their fair share of discrimination, whether they be a cracka, a bean-pie, a rice-patty, or a chocolate-chip

 

Communism is the exact opposite of fascism. I watched that 2 and a half video you posted, I found it interesting, but rights and laws are two different things.

1. The 1st Amendment is not a law stating that people have to peacefully protest, it just says they have that right.
2. The 2nd Amendment does not state that every citizen must have a gun to be ready to stand up in arms against a common enemy, it just says they have that right.

All rights can be waived except those apparent unnamed ambiguous rights referenced in the 9th Amendment. This is not the case when it comes to laws, laws cannot be waived, if the speed limit is 55 mph and you're driving 55 mph then you cannot get a ticket for speeding. But you do have the right (under the 5th Amendment) not to self incriminate, yet you can still willingly do it. However, the 9th Amendment covers unenmerated rights (aka inalienable Rights) which you like to call "unalienable rights" that people have; which covers things like the right to be a certain race, sex, hold particular religious beliefs, have a particular sexual preference. Laws can be made to protect rights but there doesn't have to be a law to ensure that people have particular rights. Rights are not mandated (like laws), rights only grant latitude and that "latitude" is trampled all the time. This is reality, not prediction. A prime example of this is the "law" of Contempt, you do not actually have to violate any written law to violate the law of contempt. To be guilty of contempt you only have to fail to recognize or respect "authority", but those same authorities don't have to recognize or respect you (or your rights). The law of contempt is held supreme to all rights granted by any constitution. It basically erases the Constitution (at will).

 

I never addressed fascism versus communism. I will, if you like, but I haven't.

Now, when it comes to Rights. The Declaration of Independence reads as follows:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The term is unalienable NOT inalienable. Unalienable Rights are given by a Creator (Your God, whomever you deem that to be) and cannot be waived. Inalienable rights, on the the other hand, can be waived. The Declaration of Independence stated a foundational principle. The Bill of Rights codified that set of principles. And so, the United States Supreme Court stated:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

In law, the words inalienable and unalienable have been interpreted differently. The puppetmasters have been quite adept at playing mind games over that word, so I would suggest you look at an original copy of the Declaration of Independence and find out exactly what word you are intending to use.


"Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE." Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: 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.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government.

Glad we could get you started back to the path of sanity.

 

You have a deep misconception of the meaning on "inalienable." Inalienable is the opposite of alienable, unalienable is synonymous with inalienable (but saying "inalienable" is just the more proper way of saying "not-alienable"). Furthermore, at the time of the writing of Declaration of Independence it is important to recognize that "all men" first meant "only men" second mean "only free men" and third meant "only land-holding tax-paying men." Decades past (well beyond the time and ideology of the founding fathers) before "all-men" meant "all-people" (note the year of your legal citation). The idea that unalienable and inalienable have two separate meanings (based on written definition) was the bias of the argument within the 9th Amendment that qualifying the term by limited examples would expel any example that was not listed, and became the reason why it was later stated that the 10th Amendment became an argument to nullify the or undermine the significance of the 9th Amendment. But it was the 9th Amendment that was written to insure rights previously recognized and preserved before the US Constitution was even written would remain preserved without listing them all. Roads don't have rights because roads are on property and that property can be bought and sold.

But lets just review your claim on your terms for a moment any check your theory. You claim "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" but a person's life can be taken, their liberty can be taken, and their happiness can be taken.

 

You are getting more and more foolish as you go along.

As was demonstrated, the difference between inalienable and unalienable is a LEGAL difference. Inalienable rights can be waived; unalienable Rights cannot. And now, you are grasping at straws with your last paragraph.

Yep. People can take your life, but you had a Right to it. If / when a person takes your life without just cause, they are to be arrested, tried and sentenced for the violation. Same for your Liberty and your other unalienable Rights. The law cannot promise you that, in spite of laws, someone cannot take your Rights. But, it provides relief if someone does take those unalienable Rights without just cause. BTW, you cannot take my Rights just to make you feel safe.

At this point, you are making sh!+ up just to argue. For some reason totalitarian governments appeal to you. And while you have a right to your opinion, nobody has a right to be wrong in their facts. The courts, sir, have defined the words unalienable and inalienable differently AND you wanted to argue over the word itself. Take a look at the original Declaration of Independence (I'm sure you have.) You will want to argue the point, but it is unalienable and if anyone takes the time to read the cases I provide you can see how the two words are nuanced differently. YOU FAIL.

 

For MANY facts proving the difference between unalienable and inalienable Rights see this:

http://rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/law/unalienable_vs_inalienable.php

 

What is the "just cause" in taking a life that has been doubted an "unalienable right" granted by the Creator? I sir, have failed in nothing inalienable mean not-alienable, I don't care what some lawyer in court got away with trying to redefine it said. Pick up a dictionary.

 

Dictionaries do not define legal terms. Courts do. The most definitive dictionary that courts rely on are legal dictionaries with Black's being the number one. I understand what wordsmiths say, sir. The problem is dictionaries do not define the law. The courts do and the two words have been interpreted differently and the correct word is unalienable.

Furthermore, you do not and never did have a right to waive unalienable Rights.

When someone tries to commit murder, it is just cause for society to take that murderer out of society; it is equally acceptable to defend your LIFE if it is imminent danger. I realize that this is wasted effort as it common sense, but here goes:

You have a Right to Liberty.
I have a Right to Liberty.

Whose Right remains supreme? Neither. If I try to jeopardize your Liberty, it comes at an expense of losing my own. The only way society has a claim against your Liberty is if / when you jeopardize the Liberty of another. OTOH, you cannot go to the government and offer up your Life in exchange for, let us say, getting a family member out of prison.

 

I accept your concession of the point.
You cannot in any meaningful way, explain how or why WM will stop importing cheap products once they raise their pay to $50/hr.

 

So the Courts have become the new Creators? After all they have apparently convinced themselves that they are the only true gods. What are they going to make up next?

 

You have long since exited your own thread and not pursued it. The last few posts have someone that is dedicated beyond anything in this world to sh!+canning their God given unalienable Rights and trashing everything America was founded upon.

Where he could hang his knowledge on history, he chooses fantasy. Instead of learning what a legal precedent is, he chooses layman books about word definitions, denying that the courts - not dictionaries are the arbiters of what the law is - with the United States Supreme Court being the final arbiter of what the law is.

Those people that hate their own; deny their culture, sh!+can the Rights their forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure make it so that whites cannot be proud of themselves when they have those with either terrible low IQs or a hatred of their own to lobby against white culture.

With that caliber of people around, having white skin is a curse. And those, who hate the foundational principles of this country, deserve to be discriminated against.

 

I understand dollar stores are very profitable, and if that's what the Walton family wants to become then they have that right, but their policy of hiring employees that are high-risk health and taking out private corporate insurance policies out on them needs to come to an end. Either way they won't continue to be as profitable as they were when they were exploiting people.

 

Dude, you're getting beyond silly and getting to the point of ridiculous.

Courts do not and cannot give you nor take away your unalienable Rights. The courts are the final arbiters of what the law is, and according to the United States Supreme Court (in a case called Marbury v Madison) the Supreme is the final arbiters of what the laws is.

As a philosophical matter, when the government (and that includes the courts) begin to tyrannize the people, the foundational principles are:


"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form..." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

Just because the courts define the terms by which they interpret the law in no way, shape, fashion or form claims they created the individual. If you honestly got that out of what was presented, then you seriously need remedial reading skills training in order to be in this discussion.

 

No person in the United States should be discriminated against, OR FOR, on any basis, for any reason imaginable -- period! Hint: slavery was abolished in this nation over 150 years ago!

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 made all citizens of the country fully equal before the law. But....

Unfortunately, many parts of the United States government and our educational institutions began practicing an extreme form of discrimination AGAINST White people called "Affirmative Action" (a.k.a., Reverse-Discrimination). To this day this practice of discrimination against White people infuses everything from a person's ability to enroll in a college on the basis of qualifications and merit, all the way to the handling of massive Federal Government Contracting methodologies!

 

Thank you again for your concession.

 

Of course they can, they do it every day, and get away with it because they are above "everything" (the law, definitions, and even God apparently). "Contempt" charges are their divine weapons of choice, because they themselves are the only ones immune to it.

And I love your quote:

Because although the Declaration may say that we have such rights, carrying in out is an entirely different matter. Because the government has already been hard at work disarming the population and creating more and more gun regulations while beefing up law enforcement with the 1033 program, and the first thing they'll do is label anyone that rises up against them as a terrorist (those they themselves are the true terrorist). It's the courts in the US that are the biggest sponsors of corruption and they do so with impunity. I have no respect for any court, judge, or lawyer. They are the most despicable criminal element in or society.

 

I rarely think about being white. I don't think it's normal to think about your skin color all the time. Maybe you need a hobby or something?

 

To be fair, social justice like, you should identify yourself, as you are playing identity politics.

 

FWIW, I agree with most of your post this time. The Constitution clearly lays out the powers, duties and the authority given to government. They are not governing according to the Constitution. For example, I told you about Marbury v. Madison wherein the Supreme Court unilaterally declared itself to be the final arbiters of what the law is. What did the founding fathers say?

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." Thomas Paine

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves..." Thomas Jefferson

Still, the reality is while we have a de facto (illegal) government emanating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption, they ARE in charge of the whole shebang. And I, more than any person on these boards, know what it's like when the government labels you a domestic terrorist / enemy combatant without the Due Process guaranteed in the Constitution. I can tell you what it's like, up close and personal, to be pursued by JBTs that have nothing except innuendo and fantasies to justify trying to kill you.

THAT is why I do not believe in giving the government any more power. My default is to oppose any program that increases the size, power, and / or scope of government. That is the very reason I oppose the white people in this country. Those mindless idiots watch Fox News and really believe that a news station owned largely by the Council on Foreign Relations is going to give them the truth.

And so, they buy into the wall around the southern border B.S. Those idiots will even agree to allowing guns to be registered (remember how I hooked this up with the National ID Card?) Then, one day, all that technology, all that manpower, all those guns will be used against the citizenry. So - called "illegal aliens" today and the next day it's whites being called domestic terrorists / enemy combatants the next. Again, bear in mind I have experience with this very scenario under the pretext of the so - called "Patriot Act."

Resistance will not be easy, but it's better than to support legislation that can come back and bite you in the arse. You have to learn how to exhaust all of your non-violent, legal avenues of redress and then know when to resort to extraordinary measures. Had the non-thinking whites listened to me 15 years ago, they would have gotten a 35 percent pay increase, repealed the 16th Amendment and we would not have National ID cards today. We are in a better position to solve our problems without big government. Remember that.

 

You want to know what skin colour I have, that is. OK, fair enough - I am usually whitish, unless the Sun shines too strong. Then I turn brownish.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why I should feel ashamed to be white?