Well, this really depends on how you define the words.
FisherQueen
Charles A Lindberg
[Moderator Hat ON]
FisherQueen, insults belong in the Pit, not Great Debates. Charles, stop insulting other posters in this forum. Everyone: I removed Charles’ homepage link since we don’t allow SF links here. We’re discussing his posting privs; we do have a ban on hate speech, but we have allowed SF posters to post before as long as they obeyed the rules. Given that I’ve already had to warn Charles, though, it’s not looking good. However, as long as a poster is in GD you will debate his argument; the Pit is there if you can’t keep it civil.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Biologically. There is no such biological distinction as human races.
“Race” may have some socio/political applications but Lindy used a biological term “evolution” in conjunction with “white race.” The two terms are non-sequiturs.
Ahhh… what we have encountered here is what is referred to as a “revelation of the method”. The “method” being how to dissolve the sovereignty of, and make ready, the United States to be merged into the “global community” under the benevolence of a “world government”.
At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, then governor Bill Clinton gave praise to one of his mentors, Carroll Quigley, a professor of history at Georgetown University. Professor Quigley outlined the “method” in his 1966 book, entitled “Tragedy and Hope”.
So, you may hate President Bush and the Republican Party as a whole, (I am not just speaking to Diogenes the Cynic, but others whose feet also fit the shoes as well.) but you agree with him on this issue? Well, you’re being used as planned. Marx and Engels coined a phrase for those of you. “Useful…”.
National sovereigny is a bane to those who envision a One World Utopia, and one of the “methods” used to deconstruct sovereignty is to break down a nation’s traditional society.
While some in this thread have already used the tired bromide that “we are all foreigners”, with regards to the founding of America, that is nothing more than sophistry. Of course foreigners founded this country. Foreigners from such countries as England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy, etc. In other words, European nations. And that is the way it was for two-hundred years, that is until 1965, when the brakes were put on traditional White European immigration and the gates were opened to “Third-world” immigration.
And the Globaist Utopians proclaim, “They (illegal immigrants)are vital to the economy. They are willing to do jobs that Americans won’t do”. More sophistry. What the Globalist Utopians really mean is that they will do jobs at a pay scale that Americans will not. So, if there were no illegals to do the work, do you think that the crops would just rot in the fields, or do you think that the pay scale would rise to a level where Americans would do the work? Yeah, you may have to pay a few cents more for a head of lettuce, but that could be offset in a reduction of taxation required by the state to finance illegal immigration.
It’s hard to imagine that the powers-that-be within our government institutions would purposefully do this, but make no mistake about it, this was done on purpose. Not so much for benevolence, as the anointed would have us to believe, but to facilitate the socialization of America with the ultimate goal of assimilating Americans into what is commonly referred to as the “New World Order”, which is nothing more than camouflage for “New World Communism”
Let me give you an illustrative example of how America is being led down that path.
Forty years ago, the Spanish speaking Americans of Southern California were predominantly conservative. They enjoyed the American tenets of freedom, liberty and limited government. They embraced the concept capitalism.
Today, the political climate of SoCal leans decidedly more toward socialism. This change has come about as a result of the immigration policies post 1965 and has, with an intent of malice, changed the political demographics of America.
One thing I have always found amusing is the resistance by these new Spanish-speaking immigrants to any attempt to declare English as the official language for doing state business. Their “reasoning” is that they consider the English language to be an imposition of European culture upon them. To which I say, “HEY IDIOT, WHERE DO YOU THINK SPAIN IS!!!”
I would chose 500 million Americans over 200 million any day - the color doesn’t matter to me. 200 million people wouldn’t be enough to stay on top in the world scene - do ** you ** want those 200 million white Americans being pushed around and pressure by a 1.5 billion Chinese or a similar number of Indians?
Next, hispanics are of variously mixed white(you do realize Spanish people are white, right?) and AmerIndian descent, with the occasional African descentant here or there. I have seen Mexicans who are “whiter” than I am.(some have blue hair&blond eyes, whilst mine are brown.) I myself am of mixed European (English, Irish, Scottish, Dutch, German) and AmerIndian (Cherokee in particular) descent myself. My current girlfriend is of Phillipino descent, so their is a good chance ** MY **future grandchildren will be some shade of brown. If my future kids decide to marry a hispanic or even, golly gosh gee, one of dem black folks, I won’t care, as long as they are happy. The color of one’s skin doesn’t matter to me.
Um, please define “White”. What exactly do you mean? Mostly European? Or only Northern European, or Western Europe?
Do the Irish count? What about Italians? French?
You know, if everyone had your attitude, I wouldn’t be here today. My ancestors were Eastern European-Hungarians, Slovaks, Poles. And on the other side, we were Irish, and German. The WASPs of the time would have spat on us.
:rolleyes:
I really hate this whole notion of “White pride”, because it’s so vague, not to mention usually motivated by bigotry. I am really proud of being Irish/German/Polish/Slovak/Hungarian, and the various traditions that stem from my background. I’m glad we’re having pierogies and mushroom soup today, like my ancestors from from Eastern Europe did.
That’s my extent of “pride” in my “race.”
BTW, you ARE aware, Charles, that much of the land belonging to the US today was originally part of Mexico?
And with more than two witnesses who can testify in open court. You are so busted.
You gotta admit that this is one hell of an invasion. Come over here, work shitty jobs*, pay into social security but don’t collect, and bring all sorts of new foods, art, and world views–all without firing a shot! It reminds me of Italy’s scheme for defeating invaders as detailed in Catch-22. You get over run by foreigners? Make 'em Italian! How long until these invading dirty foreigners make the afternoon siesta SOP? Or is that strictly a Spanish thing?
*I’m sure there are white & blue collar illegals, but that probably isn’t what this thread is about…
Good post, Guin. I, myself, am descended from WASPs, Germans, the French, the Welsh, the Scottish, the Irish, Ulstermen, the Swiss and the Luxemborgese. If this view of Mr. Lindberg was always the historical case, none of my ancestors would be here, or, at the very least, none of the Irish, Luxembourgese, Swiss, or German ancestors.
hows it going capn? are you and oddity regulars?
You idiot, obviously it’s not how many people live in a country that determines its strength! Look at America now, we are the dominant superpower!
Actually, Razorsharp, there is an incipient swing back in the conservative direction among “Hispanic” communities – for one, the Cubans are as hardline Republican as they come; and an increasing number of the Puerto Rican(*) elected officials at state/county level run under the R column. The California Latinos did NOT line up behind Bustamante anywhere close to as much as he had expected them in the recent election (nor the NY Puerto Ricans behind Ferrer in '01). So things may actually be looking up from your side. As more of us work our way up from the barrios and get fed up at “leaders” that can only offer continued dependency, we’ll be more receptive to the sensible, well reasoned parts of the Conservative message.
The sensible, well-reasoned ones, mind you. Panicked fever-dreams about our own government conspiring to deliver us to the hands of the dreaded One World Government, on the other hand… (And anyway, who’s that? The UN? Have you ever seen what a trainwreck it is for them to even try to get something actually done? Who, then? The Communist International? The Masons? The Illuminati? Dr. Doom? SEELE?) Now, I do believe that if left unchecked the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft axis may do some hefty damage to the republic, but hell, why attribute to Grand Conspiracy what can be adequately explained by shortsighted mediocrity.
Getting back to the OP …
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Article III., Section 3 of the US Constitution.
Treason is explictly defined within the Constitution. The Founders took this route to prevent the abuse of the definition of treason as used by the King. Methinks you are taking the route the Founders deliberately chose to prevent.
Levying war? Not possible. Illegal immigrants do not appear to have any deliberate and concerted effort, collectively or individually to wage a war against the country they now live. On the contrary, common sense would dictate their motivations for coming to the USA are contrary to levying war against the USA. More importantly, there is no Congressional declaration of war, overt or otherwise, against illegal immigrants so by strict definition your assumption has no merit. And before you think any illegal immigrant laws are cause to fit the definition of war, think again.
Aid and comfort to the enemy? Again, this fails. How are these illegal immigrants the enemy? Is this country waging a defined war (declared or otherwise) against them? If so, please point me to the front lines. Sure, the laws offers them limited protection. Sure their mere status as illegal does not make them one of “us.” So is this part of the “us v them” approach to life these days? Just because they are not citizens, nor here legally, how does that make them the enemy? Besides, since the constitutional concept of war has been addressed, this point falls by itself with no foundation.
So has the Administration failed in its duty to uphold existing laws against illegal immigrants. One might be able to make a case based on the sheer numbers here, the ongoing issue with our borders, how terrorists can, and did, slip in here so easily, etc. But the failure will not be without the complicity of previous Administrations, the complicity of citizens who employ these illegal immigrants knowing they are breaking the law by doing so, and by other citizens who are aware of such illegal activities, but do nothing themselves to help stop it.
Then again, since the entire history of this country is based upon immigrants, illegal or otherwise, it is engrained in this culture that we help each other to have a better life.
The real questions should be are our illegal immigration laws sufficient to meet this country’s needs, are these laws enforced properly, or more importantly, are these laws antiquated and in serious needs of a second look and reform from a practical point of view?
Finally, isn’t a felon someone convicted of a crime? Since illegal immigrants haven’t been convicted, is it fair to call them felons? I do not think any of the Dopers here will argue that the mere existence of these immigrants isn’t illegal, but they are not felons, especially in the vein you define. Regardless of your personal attitudes toward them, due process of law applies to everyone under the Constitution, citizens and illegal immigrants alike.
Hiding your bigotry and racism behind the false curtain of treason doesn’t cut it.
Ah, now I remember who it was that the OP reminded me of. Ladies and gentlemen, a blast from the past, I give you . . . **Kukulkon**!
He’s probabaly who he says he is. He surely knows K u k u l k o n though.
Really Duckster, aren’t you joining the same radical clan by saying that everyone who wants to hang Bush for treason are racists and bigots.
And what a strange thought ! The idea that due process under the Constitution applies to those who are not under the protection of the Constitution. Wonderful! This means that everyone in the entire world is free!
Mexicans, Persians, Al Quedaians…everybody, welcome!
We open our hearts, our welfare, our borders, to those who have the guile and disregard for our rules, to slip into this country illegally without being caught.
How egalitarian - a don’t ask, don’t tell policy for illegal immigrants. :smack:
They got non-white-skinned folks in Trondheim, too.
http://www.tamiltigers.net/features/tamil_migration.html#Table%202
“They’re everywhere, they’re everywhere!!”
I believe if you read the entire thread you will find the OPs premise has no constitutional support, something I was attempting to address. That the OP also expresses personal bigotry is an additional comment of the OP.
A read of the US Constitution will tell you that due process of law applies to everyone under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, citizens and non-citizens alike. How you arrive at the entire planet is beyond me. What other countries may do/may not do is not germane to the thread.
So let me get this straight. You’re claiming that every single person who lived in the United States before 1965 was white? I claim that you’re wrong. You should either provide a cite to back yourself up or admit that you lied. Furthermore, as others have mentioned, the “White” race was only invented in the late 20th century, so during the first two centuries of our country’s history, we couldn’t have had “White” people.
Two other points:
First, regarding your example about the supposed wave of socialist immigrants in southern California. Is Southern California more or less prosperous now than forty years ago? Is the average standard of living higher or lower? What about for the entire country? Given your answer to the previous three questions, can’t we safely conclude that these “socialist” immigrants have been a good thing for Southern California and for the whole country?
Second, you claim that socialist immigrants are guilty of the horrible crime of competing on an open free labor market, and that we should oppose socialism by imposing some sort of government regulation on this part of the economy. Well, do you fight back against this with your consumer voice? Do you carefully ensure that every product and service you buy is made only by native born Americans, even if it means paying much higher prices? If not, then isn’t it hypocritical of you to say that the government should make every American do exactly that?
Clearly, the OP has been flying The Spirit of St. Loonis.