Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About WMD

  • Rank
    American Patriot

Recent Profile Visitors

104 profile views
  1. Even back in the '80's when I was stationed in Germany, there were issues with Muslim immigrants.
  2. I asked you where it was you think your right to own a weapon came from, nobody has stated you don't have a right to own a weapon.
  3. Try to enter any country on the globe without a Passport. Try to enter any country just by leaving a cruise ship that makes port. There is no God given right to go anywhere on the globe you please. Liberty, as used in the DoI, doesn't equal freedom to enter another sovereign nation. I gave a link that explains the laws passed by the Pilgrims from the Mayflower in 1639 Massachusetts and laws as passed by other Colonial colonies during the times from 1659 - 1789. The laws passed by Colonial American colonies and the Confederate States, these laws carried over to the US when it was formed in 1789.
  4. Some people believe that Unalienable/Inalienable Rights include the right to free movement upon the globe. They think sovereign nations don't have the right to keep people from entering their country. In the DoI the founders agreed that all men were created equal, but that didn't include them having the liberty to roam the globe. Liberty doesn't mean freedom, we secured these rights to ourselves and our posterity, all though we recognize these rights of all people in their countries and we push those countries that deny their citizens those rights to change. Our founders recognized the right to emigrate (leave ones country of origin with permission) but they also recognized the receiving nations ability to deny entry or to remove them from the country. Even the Pilgrims that landed in 1620 passed laws that deny entry via their port of entry to criminals, vagabonds and paupers from outside their settled lands. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=2ahUKEwihspq68vfcAhWQJXwKHaXlDyIQFjAKegQIChAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusinc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FUSImmigrationhistorylutton.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3bS_X4q3gnltYViJPJZWrw So, even in Colonial America, foreigners could be denied entry based on the laws set forth and established. How could the founders then believe every foreigner had a right to come to the newly formed US via some mis-understanding of the word Liberty as expressed by some people?
  5. Cesar Chavez was against the importation of workers, including illegals entering the US because they were undercutting wages. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/cesar-chavez-illegal-immigration-foe/ This is a lot different then the Barder Wacth Program of David Duke, who did it for racist views and tried to use Chavez's reasoning for it. Duke had nothing to do with the labor moment in the US. https://dangerousminds.net/comments/that_time_david_duke_and_kkk_patrolled_the_mexican_border The majority of people against illegals today align with Chavez (keeping illegals out due to taking jobs from Legal workers in the US), not Duke, unless you are part of the Alt-Right. So when certain people claim those against illegal immigrants and those that want a wall built are members of the National Socialist Movement, it goes to show their ignorance of actual history.
  6. It's not about "screw them guys" it's just their interpretation of law and out of context quotes contributes to their idiocy and shows just how ignorant to both history and law they really are. Yes, Soveriegn/Pre-Amble Citizens don't grasp the fact that they can't renounce their recognized citizenship unless they move out of country and renounce their US Citizenship altogether. Claiming that law does not apply to them or that they can renounce their SS number and so-called contracts with the govt relieves them of any legal bindings to the US govt, is even more hilarious.
  7. There is also the 1953 theory that the 14th was illegally ratified, to which I would ask; why did it take 85 years for some attorney to try to make that argument? https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/was-the-fourteenth-amendment-constitutionally-adopted/ Then you have the Sovereign Citizen idiots that claim (or those that claim to be Pre-Amble Citizens - as if they are somehow different then Sovereign Citizens) Which would make them stataeless and the idea that one can renounce one's citizenship in order to evade the laws of the land is unknown in all countries and U.S. courts have uniformly found this argument frivolous. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen
  8. If they are arguing because they think the Citizenship Clause would be eliminated, they are missing the fact that the 14th is merely declaratory and affirmative of existing law, i.e. the 1866 Civil Rights Act. So according to the Wong Kim Ark decision, Congress need only limit the law via a bill passed and signed by the President. Congress recognizes this since even the Democrats, Harry Reid, pushed a bill in 1993 to do just that. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/25/harry-reid/reid-bashes-republicans-position-immigration-he-on/ https://thepoliticalinsider.com/harry-reid-birthright-citizenship/
  9. I'm not allowed to respond in theresisters forum where your topic is, sorry.
  10. A White Nationalist is: a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism that holds the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.[2][3][4] Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation.[5] White nationalists say they seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of historically white states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism As to your video....it clearly states only the Alt-Right and Neo-Nazis believe the Founders were White Nationalists in its opening sentence.
  11. White Nationalist would be the term. What is "our" culture? How do foreigners coming here change our culture? Do they not add to our culture? Do you seriously think George Washington was a White Nationalist?
  12. LOL, You can't carry in a federal building or a court house either. It doesn't wash away your right, though.
  13. Set to invade and remove our type of govt and tear up our Constitution, to place us under a One World Order - Theirs!
  14. What rights from this case were washed away? This is about the National Bank. SMFH
  15. Has nothing to do with rights being washed away. Its about the Bill requiring organizations that receive federal HIV and AIDS-related funding to adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking (Policy Requirement).

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy