John Last

I'm pretty old... but I just can't seem to recall that, I'm afraid. I can remember Bill jogging and nearly having a heart attack; I can recall a cigar and semen stains on a dress: I can recall Hillary "standing by her man", but for the life of me I can't recall any support for his victims. But what has that got to do wi…. Okay, got it!! Seriously though, have we come to the point where accusations are, in themselves, proof of guilt? I am old enough to remember a time when proof was required, when the accused had a right to confront his/her accuser, and when people were presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. I hope the liberals are aware that the tactics they use today, can and will be used against them in the future. The real victim here is the Constitution and it's processes.

Here

July roll call: Here!

They are a government-sponsored "think tank" which compiles records on hate groups... The fairy that used to run the place, Mark Potok, is as pink as they come. If you're not communist, your anti-government.

My position is, and you're not at all obliged to accept it (but I doubt you'll dissuade me either), is that any government doesn't make money, it spends money. The bigger the government the more it spends... where does the money come from? Taxes (and public debt of course). Now, I'm more than willing to entertain arguments that our government is too big and/or spends too much, so if that's the case let's start with limiting the size/spending (chicken or egg first)... eliminating departments and even some functions of the government. Don't forget that, for example, our military "protects" basically the whole world, so that might be discussion No.1. Government pensions/benefits might be discussion #2, and so on. Just my two cents on the matter.

Well, there certainly is an invasion from outside, but I also think we've been rotting from the inside for over 30 years now... Globalist ideology, if not outright communism, has debased our ideas of personal excellence and responsibility. We now look for the government to solve all of our (even personal) problems, as opposed to finding our own solutions. We've spawned a generation of snowflakes, and as the years progress there will be more and more of them; to the point where "traditional American values" will be considered unamerican. Hell, you can see it now, and it will only get worse. To start, here are a couple of ideas you can think about. 1. Make English the official language of the United States. 2. Make every school make every student say the Pledge of Allegiance, every day. 3. Make Constitutional literacy a requirement for high school graduation.

Your 2) and 4) above... anti-immigration? And I confess you lost me completely on 3) citizenship being like ...the first suitor to darken the doorstep: are we talking about the forcing (what are we forcing?) or not caring who comes into the country? I think the government's role also concerns vetting who APPLIES for entry (application has to be made to the US government before being able to enter). Now, I'll admit that this is different than the system of 230 years ago, but the world is different, and according to the tools in the Constitution, so is our government. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but are you saying that the Constitution should be "frozen" as of some point, and any changes since then should be invalidated? I'm trying to grasp your premise, but on the one hand you cite 1790 terms, and later infer that we won't/can't pass laws to correct a situation...for example next year 2019, we could pass something that says if you were born here but never lived inside the country, although technically a citizen, you have to jump through such and such hoops to "validate" your citizenship. Demon Rum prompted the 19th Amendment, and a decade or so later we reversed it with the 21st. I'm sure I don't recall all of your writings, but I understood that you're against "the wall" (we will be the real prisoners), and if the illegals flood in they'll end up swamping the country. I recall mention of a war with Mexico. Do you see any other solution?

Have not the individual States formed a UNION , granting the protection (war powers, immigration, diplomacy etc.) of ALL STATES to the federal government? I thought that was the underlying reason for the original Constitution.

I did a google search and it looks like a "star wars" game type site..."The aliens invaders will be here in 20 years" type of thing. Honestly it didn't looklike anything the UN would put up.

What I stated are my beliefs, responding to Ripcannon...you have nothing to do with them, so get over yourself. I referenced the 14th Amendment etc. because it's been part of this discussion, but I do understand that you would alter or abolish it if you could. I don't give two whits about your ideas, I told you that before. If you're so full of yourself, or are so desperate to get "converts" to your ideology, you're certainly free to post anything you wish...it's a free country. I will say this however... one day you say that everybody needs to speak with one voice to their elected officials. The next day you say that trying to achieve unity yields the Tower of Babel. Go bother somebody else.

My beliefs are in he Constitution of the USA...including ALL the amendments (even the ones I may not agree with: others do/did and that's how they got to be law). I believe that all men are created equal (the ones born here: others can join)...they don't all take advantage of the opportunities this country provides, but that's their business. I believe that if a person, regardless of race, wants to work hard, and participate in safeguarding our freedoms he should have the opportunity be become a citizen. I believe every country should have secure borders, inside which they can enjoy their own culture. I believe that we all have a right to our opinions, and that we shouldn't all have to be of the same mind-set (100% agreement) before we can take action. I'm a Christian, or try to be, but I don't think that makes me any better than the next guy. What concerns me, I guess, is who is in the foxhole next to me. So, when somebody says we need to do such and so, or this is the way it should be, it makes me wonder exactly where I stand on an issue (like taking up arms).

I think I'm with you... metaphors aren't my strong suit. Can you please give an illustration (based on our discussion thus far) for your comment: "Let us not damage our collective liberty trying to hold back the tyranny."? What I got from it, is that there should be some leeway in our "militia policy", which goes against the "one unified voice" advocated by some. That in turn, requires a decision as to whether, or not, to take up arms in support of a policy I may not believe in. In my case, it would be open borders and citizenship for whites only. Thank you.

Well, let me just go on record as being opposed to thinking like that of Resistor. I'll have no part of it. My Dad fought the "superior race" in WWII and I'd do the same today. Now, there's no question that this country has it's share of self-created problems, but I don't believe the Founding Fathers would appreciate one segment of the population setting itself up as intrinsically better than another.

It's a process to become a US citizen. The procedure is voluntary, and begins after the person has LEGALLY entered the US. It takes about 5 years, requires interviews, testing on how our government works, English language ability and a "clean slate" during that time. After the final interview is passed successfully, a swearing in ceremony takes place, at which time a "certificate" of citizenship is given to the applicant. During the swearing in, an oath is administered, giving allegiance to the USA: similar to what is given to US military.

WOW! Now I get it!!! No wall defies the open border idea that the new new world order wants!! Makes perfect sense: no wall = secure national borders. Just one question: what about the millions of ILLEGAL immigrants? We don't need a wall, just a war with Mexico. I get it! Thanks!!