"Back then, all the bobble-heads started making this Liberal mythology where folks like Arabs and Native Americans and such were really just idealistic Liberals steeped in Christian ideals; untouched by nasty Western culture."


Back then, the Native Americans accounted for over 500 diverse nations. To reference them as one group acting "saintly" or otherwise is disingenuous.

The constitution (US) owes its humble beginnings to one of those nations.


"It's idiotic, and people still do it today with statements like I quote above... "


The statement was made to exemplify that both are in the same sinking boat. The difference is one is in deeper water than the other. Both have the same potential -- sink with the boat or move to land.

If you don't like your second class status, change it.


"Let the pissants moan about the US's "second class citizens" and move to places like Denmark which make it illegal to question the holocaust..."


The only one moaning (if anyone is) over second class status is you. You are most welcome to change the facts for yourself, that is leave second class.

'til dawn...

"The only one moaning (if anyone is) over second class status is you. "

Huh? That's a desperate move. I don't recognize second-class status as being a valid characterization. I dunno if you are imposing some sort of 'downtrodden' status because of some socialist ideal or Liberal idea of equality, but it isn't valid at all.

I'm not moaning about my status, I'm deriding your characterization of it.

1. It is your belief, however that does not constitute that it is right / correct. 2. "far more promise"... It is helpful (for one's psyche), to have hope that the future will bring the desired condition. However, the track record indicates otherwise. [A group was promised 40 acres and a mule: didn't happen; the US broke all treaties with the Native Americans; development and implementation of an alternative fuel and a "supercar"... canned that as well]

Do you have "proof" of this, or is it merely your "opinion" that we don't?

"Huh? That's a desperate move..."


It wasn't; your feelings are noted.


"I'm not moaning about my status, I'm deriding your characterization of it."


Sure you are. Take it up with your government:


Read 'em and weep...

"The government of the United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a state."
In re Merriam, 36 N. E. 505, 141 N. Y. 479, affirmed 16 S. Ct. 1073, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287.

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

(15) “United States” means -

(A) a Federal corporation:

United States Code, Title 28 - Judicial and Judiciary Procedure, §3002. Definitions, (15)(A), p. 564

UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 28, PART VI, CHAPTER 176, SUB CHAPTER A, Sec. 3002. Definitions (15) ''United States'' means -

(A) a Federal corporation;
( an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States

[That makes you a franchise / property.]

“We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each is distinct from the other and each has citizens of its own...”
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588

"The term 'Citizen of the United States' must be understood to mean those who were citizens of the State as such after the Union had commenced and the several States had assumed their sovereignty. Before that period there were no citizens of the United States."
Inhabitants of Manchester v. Inhabitants of Boston, 16 Mass. 230, 235.

"The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which are protected by the 14th Amendment, against abridgment by the states, are those which arise out of the essential nature and characteristics of the national government, the federal Constitution, treaties, or acts of Congress, as distinguished from those belonging to the Citizens of a state;. . . . " Gardner v. Ray, 157 S. W. 1147, 1150; Hammer v. State, 89 N. E. 850, 851, 173 Ind. 199, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 795, 140 Am. St. Rep. 248, 21 Ann. Cas. 1034.

“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state.
United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

"Except as modified by statute, the place of birth governs citizenship status".
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815; 28 L.Ed.2d 499; 91 S.Ct. 1060 (1971).

And the Buck Act seals your fate on "Rogers v. Bellei".

*********************************************

"Do you have "proof" of this, or is it merely your "opinion" that we don't?"


That you don't what?

'til dawn...

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

Sorry but when you're talking about this it's best not to mix a "state court" opinion in with federal. Since this is a state court's opinion it really doesn't carry a lot of weight. So in a federal court your arguement would fall on it's face. No where in your rambling dissertation do you even remotely begin to prove that US citizens are a "franchise/property". This in just for you.

Is there a gibberish translator in the house? I can't make head nor nail of that uber-babble you flung onto the screen during your latest spasmodic seizure. You should offer your posting style to hospital operating theatres as a highly-effective alternative to unconsciousness-inducing medications. I don't know what makes you such a worthless poster, but it really works! I understand what you are trying to say, even though you obviously don't. If you knew what you're talking about, you'd be dangerous. As Ellen Glasgow once remarked: "He knows so little and knows it so fluently." If that post was intended as a joke, you forgot to include the punch line. Why don't you close your mouth before someone sticks an apple in it? Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if didn't lack even the dim flicker of sentience needed to qualify as a imbecile; if your weren't so fat that the Brooklyn Bridge would collapse if you ever tried to go Bungee Jumping off of it, or if you didn't have a face so ugly that your mom had to get well-and-truly drunk before she could breast feed you. No, come to think of it, you would. Anyway, I'm not really good with fools, but a friend who is good with fools wrote something down for me. Oh, yeah, "Shut your cake-hole, stupid!"

"Sorry but when you're talking about this it's best not to mix a "state court" opinion in with federal. Since this is a state court's opinion it really doesn't carry a lot of weight. So in a federal court your arguement would fall on it's face. No where in your rambling dissertation do you even remotely begin to prove that US citizens are a "franchise/property". This in just for you."


You are incorrect. It is a matter of jurisdiction. A federal court must show jurisdiction. A state court must cede jurisdiction first and the federal must accept, except where it is expressly granted. [No case citings for you as you disregard them anyway.]

'til dawn...

Sorry but when you're talking about this it's best not to mix a "state court" opinion in with federal. Since this is a state court's opinion it really doesn't carry a lot of weight. So in a federal court your arguement would fall on it's face. No where in your rambling dissertation do you even remotely begin to prove that US citizens are a "franchise/property". This in just for you." You are incorrect. It is a matter of jurisdiction. A federal court must show jurisdiction. A state court must cede jurisdiction first and the federal must accept, except where it is expressly granted. [No case citings for you as you disregard them anyway.] 'til dawn...

In your own quote you prove my point. And disregard case citings? BS
It's just as well you can type, for if you had to speak your mind, you'd be speechless. You could type every thing you know on the subject on back of a microscopic postage stamp and still have room leftover for a shopping list. Oh well, at least you only charge what your free advice is worth. As Abba Eban so aptly said: "His ignorance is encyclopedic."

I'm busy trying to imagine you with a personality. Maybe you'd be less boring once I got to know you, but I don't want to take that chance. You are like watching Amputee Field Hockey: pathetic, and very quickly disgusting. Maybe you wouldn't be such a Jerk-In-The-Box if your father didn't make love with a plant and raised a blooming idiot; if you didn't have a face that people rub tree branches on to make ugly sticks. No, come to think of it, you would.

In conclusion, thank you. We were all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view however misguided it may be.

So when I wrote that the US and Israel must negotiate with Hamas, for example, I don't think that I am being Liberal, just realistic.

I second that as long as Hamas shows good faith.

Gideon: Your premise is wrong. If you wish to bash Islam so be it, but leave the liberals out of the argument. Bush himself many time has defended Islam as a decent religion, but doesn't preclude--as liberals would agree--denouncing extremists and terrorists.

If you wish to bash Islam so be it, but leave the liberals out of the argument.

You miss my point entirely, steven. My point is that the left is rushing to defend Islam, when the tenets of MOST practitioners of the faith are diametrically opposed to everything the liberals claim.

As a conservative Christian, I am persona non grata in the American left because most see my private religious beliefs as being "oppressive". Why is that, when they defend a religion whose conservative elements hide their women behind burqas, refuse them education, and often stone them for infidelity?

Similarly, why do they chastise the president for the (addmittedly horrendous) US Patriot Act while defending nations where speaking your mind is likely to get you shot.

My argument IS to the point, Steven. Again, I was an active letter writer for Amnesty International for over a decade and a half. I KNOW the atrocities perpetrated by these governments, and find the liberal defense of them completely incomprehensible.