University of Virginia to remove Confederate plaques, ban open flames

foxnews ^ | 9/17/17 | Christopher Carbone

[ColdOne]

The University of Virginia is removing Confederate plaques from its Rotunda, strengthening its ban on open flames and giving funds from an old KKK pledge to the Charlottesville violence victims as it grapples with the Aug. 11 white nationalist rally on its campus.

The school’s student council signed on to a list of demands from a diverse group of students -- including the recruitment of more African-American students and faculty, mandatory courses about white supremacy and the addition of plaques to add context to existing Civil War statues -- following the protests in Charlottesville that resulted in the killing of Heather Heyer, a counter-protester.

[ColdOne]

The tablets have been there since 1903. They say they are going to put them someplace safe. Next up..the destruction of someplace safe sites.

The purge continues unabated.

[ColdOne]

Destruction of our history ping list. I think this will be

a high volume ping list. Please let me know if you want on

or off the list.

[KC_Lion]

"mandatory courses about white supremacy and the addition of plaques to add context to existing Civil War statues -- following the protests in Charlottesville that resulted in the killing of Heather Heyer, a counter-protester"

My heart grieves for that woman.

Still nothing for the 49 gays and their friends killed in Orlando last June.

Nothing but crickets.

[SkyDancer]

They can destroy statues, plaques, paintings, etc but they cannot destroy history.

[A_Former_Democrat]

Why not just self-demolish ? After all, UVA was founded by that racist, slaveholding white guy Jefferson

Let’s at least be consistent in our “outrage” and actions

Oh yeah, burn Monticello to the ground too. Why profit from a white bigot?

[TADSLOS]

[ProudFossil]

They can destroy statues, plaques, paintings, etc but they cannot destroy history.

What I would start to do if I had the audience is start to deride the South, demean them for never contributing anything to the history of this nation. I would say they just set there using the Union as their bread and butter, never trying to stop anything the government wanted to do. Make fools of them. I would then hope that somebody in the snowflakes, BLM, dims would realize they are destroying much of their importance to the country today. Maybe.

[Ken Regis]

To get at the ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM, investigate Terry McAulliff. What role did HE PLAY in the events that led to the deaths of 3 people. What actions do he take or authorize that promoted the violence on that Saturday?

[RegulatorCountry]

On the bright side, banning open flames will put a halt to the book burnings.

[matthew fuller]

You willing to bet on that? Remember, they own the schools, and the books.

[A_Former_Democrat]

Yes. Who’s civil rights were violated? Who’s constitutional rights to free speech and assembly were violated?

By who and acting under who’s direction and funding?

[Jolla]

Would you have ever thought there was the slightest most impossible probability, that you could end your life in your church building with your congregation singing, praying and jackboots outside ready to burn down the building?

Is that still impossible to think today?

[SkyDancer]

History is history. What happened happened. You can’t erase that by removing books, statues, etc.

[SkyDancer]

Just by saying Southern Democrats is enough.Just look at their history.

[PapaBear3625]

“No open flames” means “no candles” as well. Except the administration will always give a pass to any leftists.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Had the Army of Northern Virginia known that their state would eventually become a beacon for 3rd world aliens and socialist sell-outs, they might have done a bit better.

[ColdOne]

Terry should have been in prison orange decades ago.

[ColdOne]

Very good! +1

[sparklite2]

History is history. What happened happened. You can’t erase that by removing books, statues, etc.

---

Back in the seventies, during the cold war, I was at the Canadian National Exposition in Toronto. The USSR had an exhibit in the form of a bookstore. The books were in English and inexpensive. One of the books I bought was titled “British Foreign Policy during WWII.”

When I got the books I bought home and read some of them I understood why they were inexpensive. The books were funded by the USSR as conduits of propaganda.

The thing was, there were little if any outright lies. The facts, the history if you will, couldn’t be denied because, well, everyone knew what happened. The facts were not subversive except possibly in the choosing of which ones to use and which ones to ignore.

Where the subversion came in was the interpretation of the facts, the assignment of motives to the various players that made it seem the Soviets won the war in spite of the Allies. The facts were indisputable, what they meant was not.

Removing books can erase unpalatable motives and allow for a revision of what we think we know.

“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” - William Faulkner

[DoughtyOne]

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The so-called birthright citizenship clause:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

There are two tests here.  

Lets look at test one.

Here's how Leftists read it.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Does this grant citizenship to all persons born in the United States?

On the face of it no.  It doesn't even come close to saying that.

The inclusion of an additional stipulation in addition to simply being born on our soil, renders this a false premise.  All persons are not granted citizenship for having been born here, without being judged to be under the jurisdiction thereof.

For this reason, it is a false premise to state every person born in the United States is a citizen.

Now lets look at test two.

...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

Leftists love to claim that illegal aliens must abide by the laws of the United States (all except immigrating legally, I presume).  This they use as primafacia evidence that illegals aliens "...are subject to the jurisdiction thereof,...".

Is that true?  NO, and it's a very easy thing to test.

The very inclusion of this verbage in the amendment deligitimizes this claim.

If being on U.S. soil made illegal aliens "...subject of the jurisdiction thereof..." all by itself, this further stipulation would not have been provided.

If all illegal aliens were subject to the jurisdication thereof, the Citizenship claus would read, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Jurisdiction language would not be necessary, and it would not have been included.

The jurisdiction language had to be addressing something different than merely being present in the United States, when being born.

Conclusion:

The 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to illegal aliens born on U.S. soil.