₦airaland Forum

immhotep:
Stop wasting your time.
White women are running into the arms of black men in their thousands.

Only white women with low self esteem and poor IQ will date blacks or mem outside their race.

immhotep:
Stop wasting your time. White women are running into the arms of black men in their thousands.

Myth. i guess you have never heard of white flight you could google that up.

immhotep:
1. "Why White Women Fantasize About Black Men"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIwzLuxTMIw&t=6s
2. "White Women Say How Much They LOVE Black Men!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swv-MTn96uY
3. "White girl explains why she likes black guys"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOKLd4Nv-8Q&t=1s
4. "Why Do White Girls Date Black Guys?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hIvY4uUPD4&t=13s?
5. "Blanda Upp"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCDMGu-xi30
6. White girl sings "once you go black you never go back":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSmw7Il2bos
7. Interracial couples: our stories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KyMHsx0W8

Trash.

You finally reveal your obession.

White Women who date black men are 12times more likely to die from domestic violence than other white women who date their own white men.

immhotep:
Thomas Jefferson was obsessed with race mixing. I am just informing you

You have no evidence about that just mere speculations.

Martinez19:
That's also very possible given their immense desire for socialism. These guys don't mean we'll for America.

True, they don't mean well for America and Europe.

Some might call it conspiracy theory just to discredit it but when you consider the evidences and facts you will observe it is the truth.
Even Trump is not the saviour many think he is he is part of the problem and elite. he was brought to create an impression that American votes count.

http://revolutionharry..co.ke/2011/06/mass-immigration-and-new-tower-of-babel.html?m=1

immhotep:
Thomas Jefferson was a race-mixer.
You need to imitate your ancestor Thomas Jefferson by race-mixing with black people and producing more diversity for America.

"Jefferson's Children: The Story of One American Family" >>>>

https://www.amazon.com/Jeffersons-Children-Story-American-Family/dp/0375821686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528820151&sr=8-1&keywords=jeffersons+children

Can you show me any benefit of diversity?

immhotep:
Thomas Jefferson was a race-mixer.
You need to imitate your ancestor Thomas Jefferson by race-mixing with black people and producing more diversity for America.

"Jefferson's Children: The Story of One American Family" >>>>

https://www.amazon.com/Jeffersons-Children-Story-American-Family/dp/0375821686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528820151&sr=8-1&keywords=jeffersons+children

you seem obessed about race mixing and diversity Jeffesson or any of the founding fathers never supported race mixing or diversity.
Prior to the immigration act of 1961 US encouraged immigrates from Europe only in fact was clearly stated in the consistution by the founding fathers that US is the land for free white men.

Martinez19:
True. They can't see it because they are blinded by their lust for power. More illegal immigrants mean more votes for democrats because of the welfare democrats give them.

This is one example of the consquences of illegal immigration or open border.


Illegal immigrant killed 3 after
'sanctuary' release from custody, ICE says

https://www.foxnews.com/us/undocumented-immigrant-released-from-jail-charged-in-triple-murder?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20foxnews%2Fnational%20%28Internal%20-%20US%20Latest%20-%20Text%29

Martinez19:
True. They can't see it because they are blinded by their lust for power. More illegal immigrants mean more votes for democrats because of the welfare democrats give them.

True.

But i think it goes far deeper than votes. most of the Demorats are just sheepie used by the elite to foster One World Order by promoting a World where there is no border race or religeon.

immhotep:
USA founding father Thomas Jefferson race mixed with his black mistress Sally Hemmings.
Thomas Jefferson believed in diversity and now he has hundreds of mulatto descendants.
White Americans need to imitate their founding father Thomas Jefferson.

I far as i know this incident is still been debated wheather it happened or not secondly tjis does not justify diversity.


for your information Jefferson was a known racists and like some other Slave holders the slept with their female slaves who gave birtj to Children who where still seem as slaves evem by their white fathers.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/10/thomas-jefferson-radical-and-racist/376685/


www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-on-slavery.php


https://www.poplarforest.org/learn/thomas-jeffersons-life-and-times/the-enslaved-people-of-poplar-forest/jeffersons-views-on-slavery/


https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html

Martinez19:
Don't mind them. Their hatred for Trump comes first even if it's at the expense of reasoning.

True. the funny thing is that if illegal migration is not checked most of the Demorats and liberals will become victims of its negative effects.

immhotep:
Yeah but the whites voluntarily bought the slaves and took the trouble to ship millions of them to USA.

Long live diversity and mulatto children

True but this is no justification for diversity.
Even God supports nationalism.

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

No nation can survive with diversity.

budaatum:
My Bible says, "one should not live by bread alone or one will be malnourished". But I guess you don't have that version!

How does this justify the fact that you and your Church promote doctrines from books that are contrary to Bible teachings and you call those books God inspired?

Ubenedictus:
the woman who gave birth to the saviour didn't play a role in the salvation of humanity


sorry that sounds really dumb like you are running away from something that is starring you in the face. so giving birth to the saviour is not a role

abeg go and sleep, this is just really dull.


if you can't add one plus one it isn't my fault.

Like i said before God did not instruct us to venerate Mary your Church imposed that.

akeensbussy:
That is what you were told..

By who. Like i said before any book that contradicts what the Bible says is fake.

Bannylove13:
Trump making lots of sense..

True.

immhotep:
Guy.
Those who kidnapped Africans to America must calm down and integrate those Africans into the American society.

For your information it was Africans that kidnaped there fellow Africans and sold them to the Whites. secondly Slavery was existing in Africa between Arabs and Africans hundred of years before Whites came to Africa.

Martinez19:
I told the democrat sheeples a long time ago but they wouldn't listen.

I concur.
Democrats and liberals are deprived of common sense and logic.

Ubenedictus:
Christ's church cannot be highjacked, it has the promise of God's abiding presence.

Lie go and read the book of revelation from chapter 1 where Jesus was admonishing the 7 Churchs.

immhotep:
Blame your white ancestors who hustled to import millions of Africans into AmeriKkka.
Diversity is now your strength.
Even Thomas Jefferson race-mixed with his black mistress Sally Hemmings.

Am not white secondly stop deciving yourself diversity is not US strenght stop parroting PC and liberal crap talk.
Everybody claims that US is great becos of diversity but they fail to understand that what made US great was immigration of White Europeans not just anybody from any shithole country.

budaatum:
Considering how little you said you've read, I am not surprised, though even moreso that you haven't found anything in that little to inspire you. As for me, in the beginning was the word, so whenever I come across it written down, I'm inspired. You blueagent, inspire me with what you've written and one day they'll inspire you too.

Meanwhile, here's some contradictions in the Bible.

You are not smart enough to debate with me try harder.

If you still cannot differentiate what contradiction is what it is not than i beg you have more reading to do.

Ubenedictus:
that very act of calling certain person blessed is itself an act of veneration aka honor

So why don't you pray worship venerate Jacob,David,Abraham....e.t.c?

MuttleyLaff:
To untrained eyes they look like contradictions
but really at all aren't budaatum

I Concur

AAinEqGuinea:
Zoo strikes again I see it even in African Americans, and i know the UK sees it as well idiots

I concur every where you see blacks tne results is predictable wheather in Europe,Asia or America.

Williams clarifies this point at the end of the
debate. “In one sense,” he says, “all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
[they are still expected to obey the laws of the
land and be punished for breaking them], but
they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States in every sense [they are still subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government to which they owe allegiance].”
Two-thirds of the senators present for the vote
agreed that no further clarification was needed to make sure the amendment excluded Indians.
Only those under the full and complete
jurisdiction of the United States are included in the clause. The fact that this amendment did not authorize birthright citizenship as it exists today is demonstrated further by the fact that Native Americans did not gain U.S. citizenship en masse when this amendment passed, in 1868, but 56 years later, with an act of Congress.
Regardless of whether we should have birthright citizenship today or not, it is clear that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend individuals not subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States to be included as citizens. It is hard to believe that they would have accepted our modern conception of “birthright citizenship,” in which any person, regardless of whether they are in the country legally, and regardless of their parents’ citizenship, can claim U.S. citizenship.
It is clear that individuals within the territory of the United States, under a tourist or student visa, or who have crossed the border illegally, are not under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, but are still under the jurisdiction, at least in part, of a foreign nation. Juan E. Dávalos is a Ph.D. student at the Van
Andel School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale
College where he served as a Winston S. Churchill fellow. He holds an M.A. in philosophy of religion and ethics from Biola University. Born and raised in Ecuador, Juan became a U.S. citizen in 2011.


www.thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/no-fourteenth-amendment-not-authorize-birthright-citizenship/

No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not
Authorize Birthright Citizenship
It is clear that the framers of the Fourteenth
Amendment did not intend individuals not
subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of
the United States to be included as citizens.
By Juan Davalos Not one to shy away from controversy, former national security spokesman Michael Anton wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, the response to which has been swift and furious. He’s been called a racist (expletive), and a white nationalist whose argument is nothing but a fascist dribble and a disgraceful product of his “terrified xenophobia.” What did he advocate? An end to birthright citizenship, the policy of automatically granting citizenship to anyone born in U.S. territory, even those whose parents are citizens of foreign nations.
Anton argues that the Fourteenth Amendment
“clarified for the first time that federal citizenship precedes and supersedes its state-level counterpart,” and that it specified two criteria for citizenship: “birth or naturalization (i.e., lawful immigration), and being subject to U.S.
jurisdiction.” Birthright citizenship, he claims, is inherently self-contradictory, as it violates a basic tenet of social compact theory. Since it is unlikely that Congress will do anything about it, Anton argues President Trump should issue an executive order specifying “to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.”
Let’s Err on the Side of a Fair Reading
In the spirit of full disclosure, while I am not
Anton’s friend, I have met him more than once.
Additionally, I’m a PhD student at Hillsdale
College, for which Anton works. However, I will attempt what The Federalist writer David Marcus seems to have been unable to here, a
dispassionate assessment of the argument by
looking at the primary sources.
The controversy arising out of Anton’s article is two-fold. First, some, like Marcus, believe Anton wishes Trump to strip Americans, born of parents who are illegal immigrants, of their citizenship.
Although this is a possible reading of the
argument, it’s unlikely.
Accustomed to always err on the side of the most charitable interpretation, I took Anton’s argument to apply to future cases only. So his
recommended executive order would specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are from this day forward not to be granted citizenship. It would be highly unusual for someone like Anton to support ex post facto laws.
The second issue of controversy, to which I will dedicate most of my attention, is to Anton’s claimvthat the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not believe their words to imply birthright citizenship. The debate surrounding the amendment was, as expected, quite extensive.
Is Anton Right about the Fourteenth
Amendment Debate?
Anton quotes Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan,
who proposed adding the citizenship clause of
the amendment, as clarifying that it excludes
from citizenship “persons born in the United
States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” The problem with Anton’s quote is his addition of “[or].” Marcus concludes that this addition is to make the clause “say the opposite of what it actually said.”
This conclusion is uncalled for. Anton reads
Howard to be talking about two separate groups of people, both excluded from American citizenship by the amendment’s wording foreigners/aliens, and those who belong to
families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. To clarify this reading, he added “or” in brackets tovindicate his addition to Howard’s words. This interpretation is grammatically defensible. Both groups are expressed in two relative clauses with the same antecedent: “persons born in the United States.”
On the other hand, Marcus reads Howard as
saying that the foreigners/aliens excluded from citizenship are only those who belong to the families of ambassadors. In other words, instead of adding “or” to clarify the meaning of the sentence, Marcus essentially adds “that is, those.” Both Anton’s and Marcus’s readings are grammatically viable, so one must look at the context of the debate to determine whether birthright citizenship was meant. Fortunately for us, senatorial debates in the 1860s, unlike those of today, were very substantial and interesting.
The subject of the amendment was brought up for discussion to the Senate floor several times in the first few months of 1866. It is clear that in the earlier stages of the debate some of the main proponents of the amendment advocated some form of what we today call “birthright
citizenship.”
On January 30, 1866, Sen. Cowan asked whether the wording of the amendment would have “the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country.” Sen. Trumbull
responded, “undoubtedly.” Beware, however,
interposing our modern conceptions of
citizenship back into a debate in 1866. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no federal concept of citizenship. If a state legally recognized Chinese and gypsies as residents of that state, the federal government had no say on the matter.
If True, Indians Would Have Been Citizens 56
Years Earlier
The final debate took place May 30. Howard
introduced the final version of the citizenship
clause as an addition to the Fourteenth
Amendment declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” The addition immediately met resistance and introduced a lengthy debate to determine who would and would not be granted citizenship by that clause.
The fear that the clause would extend citizenship to Indians (Native Americans) dominated most of the debate. The Senate considered whether to add “excluding Indians not taxed,” after “subject to
the jurisdiction thereof.” Howard denied this was needed, because Indians were regarded as “being quasi foreign nations.”
The rest of the debate concerned whether this
new addition was a needed clarification. The
dispute was not whether they should include
Indians as citizens, but whether the additional
phrase was needed to clarify that Indians would be excluded. In other words, they all agreed on the exclusion, but wanted to make sure it was clear.
Sen. Doolittle immediately brought up the Indian question, followed by Sen. Cowan, who went on to question the breadth and length of citizenship,
insisting once again that Chinese immigrants and gypsies are like foreign travelers. They may be entitled “to the protection of the laws […]; but not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.” His remarks were dismissed because no one was concerned with a Chinese or gipsy “invasion.”
The pressing concern was that of Indian
citizenship.
Given earlier debates, Marcus’s reading of
Howard’s above quote is perhaps more likely, or perhaps Howard was intentionally ambiguous as he admittedly hoped the question was not in need of “any further elucidation.” However,
regardless of Howard’s intentions, the debate
over Indian citizenship and the reasons for why it was excluded from the wording of the clause is illuminating for our understanding of what constitutes and what doesn’t constitute “birthright citizenship.”
The Key Phrase: ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction
Thereof’ Howard and Trumbull see the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as key in determining the limits of citizenship. In a response to Anton in the Washington Post,
Elizabeth Wydra dismisses the importance of this phrase as a fixation of those who “deny the plain meaning of the citizenship clause.”
However, the meaning of this phrase was the
central topic of debate precisely because it
qualified who was to be considered a citizen in
the citizenship clause. It is this phrase that made it clear that Indians were not included because even though they were born on American soil,
they were not under the full and complete
jurisdiction of the United States.
For Sen. Trumbull, “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.” Senator Johnson agreed, stating that he knows “of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
Jurisdiction, says Sen. Howard, ‘ought to be
construed so as to imply a full and complete
jurisdiction on the part of the United States.’
Jurisdiction, says Sen. Howard, “ought to be
construed so as to imply a full and complete
jurisdiction on the part of the United States,
coextensive in all respects with the constitutional
power of the United States […], that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” In other words, the citizenship clause does not cover those who are not under the United States’ full and complete jurisdiction.

budaatum:
And yet, God, it is not! Nor is the Bible the only inspired word! Or are you suggesting deafening yourself by sticking your fingers in your ears so you hear no words of the Holy Ghost?

Any other book that contradicts what the Bible says is not inspired.

budaatum:
I am not defending anyone, but simply reasoning. You will find me doing the same about even God when the need arises. It is called "reasoning", or, allowing the Holy Spirit to fill the mind, to use the language of Christianity.

Do note that there is a particular sin called "Thank you Lord that I am not like the tax collector over there". And there is a lesson called "Jesus, that man over there is not one of us yet he heals in your name"! You might want to better accustomise yourself with both.

The same bible you just quoted also instructed us to verify and refuse any teaching that is contrary to bible teachings.

1john4:1-6
(NKJV)
Love for God and One Another
4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many.false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not.confess [a]that Jesus [b]Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the
Antichrist, which you have heard was coming,
and is now already in the world.
4 You are of God, little children, and have
overcome them, because He who is in you is
greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of
truth and the spirit of error.
Footnotes:

budaatum:
Do you not know buda does not do church?

I don't know ,so why are you defending Catholics?

budaatum:
Do you not know buda does not do church?

I don't know ,so why are you defending Catholics?

Yale9:
there's no case to even answer. We cannot anchor an argument upon a false premise. Besides the value of the "universal" church has remained through the years despite failed attempts by insignificant minorities to divide same.

Who made it the universal Church?

Yale9:
blame yourself.. for u're sooo gone! Eww!

Am happy that i could see beyond your Church lies if that means been so far gone, than am proud of that #Stop been a Sheepie#