Posted on 03/14/2026 10:58:26 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Rudyard Lynch, host of “WhatIfAltHist,” explains how World War I turned Western civilization against honor culture and paved the way for the bureaucratic states of the 20th century. In the aftermath of mass mobilization and industrialized trench warfare, Woodrow Wilson’s vision of the global technocracy began to take shape, coming into full force after the even greater devastation of World War II. The organic, honor-based social order of the old world gave way to a managerial system that wields power by creating its own reality.
Only for Africans brought here against their will. Everyone else already had that something.
"It will require a constitutional amendment to change it."
Negative.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The “new world order” is our current order of the experts-based system.
You know you agree with that statement. We are ruled today by the experts.
And yes, the experts-based system was in fact cemented permanently by Woodrow Wilson. The experts-based system is what replaced the honor system, and nothing has as of yet superseded the experts-based system.
I poked into Calvin's case, as it's better known.
Given the political situation at the time, the judges were absolutely going to give the King the ruling he absolutely had to have. Even so, there were dissents, which is weird, if it was like, a real thing, you know?
It hasn't worked in the past. Why should I expect it to work now?
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
That is also effectively impossible.
"Before the Civil War we had no large standing Federal army."After CW, the army was drastically reduced.
Before the Civil War, Lincoln could call up a force of 75,000 men. There was no legal authority to maintain a large standing army. Now we have one. The legal authority changed, apparently forever.
I'm surprised you find the IRS, created to enforce the income tax, to be somehow nebulous. Most folks would be surprised to learn it was created in 1862. I linked the IRS from 1862 to the present day.
Greenbacks were the first fiat currency issued by the United States. You may be too young to remember silver certificates issued by the U.S. Treasury. Now we have Federal Reserve Notes backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, not backed by anything but good faith, like greenbacks. Inflatable. They can simply prijnt more money and make all the money under your mattress worth less.
Watch this. Before the Civil war, we had no Obamacare. Before the Civil War, we had no Medicare. Before the Civil War, we had no Airports(I was going to say TSA but it gets more basic than that). Before the Civil War, we had no Department of Education.
And neither during the war, nor as a result of post-war legal changes, did we have Obamacare, Medicare, airports, TSA, or DoE. You need to take something for your diarrhea.
The relationship between the States and the Federal government was permanently reversed. With 14A, States have no say in who are their citizens.
I'm not the one who needs to hear this. He is.
You are the one who made the false reference to 1898, the year the SCOTUS opinion in Wong Kim Ark was issued, and you needed to hear about it. Anchor babies in the United States started on July 4, 1776; not in 1898. Wong Kim Ark himself was an anchor baby born well before 1898.
"The Lincoln administration created the then unconstitutional unapportioned income tax, and the Internal Revenue Bureau, later renamed Internal Revenue Service, to enforce the unapportioned income tax."All of which was abolished in 1872. Yes, the YEAR 1872. THIS IS REALLY THE DEATH KNELL FOR THE THINGS YOU BELIEVE.
1872 was really the death knell for all brain activity within your cranium.
(Note: Funnily enough, the income tax was actually abolished twice. SCOTUS did it again in 1894. Pollock v. Loan. And why was the income tax allowed to be abolished twice? Not once, but twice - it's because there were no progressives around to defend it. They wouldn't exist until 1900.)
Having been abolished by the Supreme Court in 1894, it never occurred to you that it was not abolished before 1894. The previous unconstitutional unapportioned income tax was allowed to expire when the war debts were paid off. However, those addicted to other people's money soon found a reason to reinstitute the unconstitutional unapportioned income tax. With no civil war to excuse the violation of the constitution, the simple addiction to other people's money was deemed insufficient justification for the continued unconstitutional unapportioned income tax, and it was abolished by the court.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue, or Internal Revenue Service, has been with us continuously since 1862. It has not been abolished yet.
Birthright citizenship did not arise from 14A. It started in the colonies with English common law and was carried forth into the States.Well we disagree on that point. English common law was the source for "Subject" status, but natural law is the source for "Citizen" status.
And you have a constitutional right to disagree, and to present your ridiculously wrong mutterings over and over and over. If birthright citizenship were not the law today, you would not be complaining about its self-evident existence.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 658-59:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
The 14th naturalizes babies at birth.
As previously explained, this is just bullshit, in direct conflict with the legal definition of naturalization. Read it again for the umptgeenth time:
Public Law 414
66 STAT 163, 169
June 27, 1952
(23) The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
Only aliens, lawfully present in the United States, are eligible for naturalization. It is legally impossible for anyone to be naturalized "at birth." Naturalization is only available after birth, for those having been born as aliens.
Don't you know about some dead French guy named Voddle or Waddle or something, and a Chinese immigrant in SF named Some Ting Wong?What color is the fringe on the flag in the courthouse
After viewing the below filing, I saw with scientific clarity that a natural born citizen was one born through natural procreative means but not one born by caesarian section.
The McCain birther case filing in Robinson v. Bowen et al, CAND (28 Aug 2008) Doc 27, page 4, footnote 2:
According to the plaintiff, Ambassador Keyes believes that any citizen of the United States born through natural procreative means (but not one born by caesarean section) is a “natural-born citizen” eligible to hold the Office of President.
A for Victual or Spittle, he never wrote about natural born citizens, but then along came a creative interpreter in 1797 to breathe new life and words into the writings of the still dead Swiss philosopher.
And those flag fringes are important. The fringe connotes the jurisdiction of the court. Use of the wrong color and the court has no jurisdiction.
"We made common law birthright citizenship a constitutional right with 14A."Only for Africans brought here against their will. Everyone else already had that something.
14A says "All Persons...." It does not say, "All Africans...." It does not refer to children brought here against their will, but to children born here.
"It will require a constitutional amendment to change it."Negative.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 5 empowers the Congress to enforce the provisions of 14A as written, not to change or amend anything. The text states, "All persons born... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...."
I poked into Calvin's case, as it's better known.Given the political situation at the time, the judges were absolutely going to give the King the ruling he absolutely had to have. Even so, there were dissents, which is weird, if it was like, a real thing, you know?
And it was the law of the land, and it so remained until it was changed by statute law in the UK in 1981.
There were two dissents. Were you trying to say it was only a 12-2 majority? It has been cited as, "the most important event in the history of English nationality law."
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3663533
McINTYRE, Joe and MILNE, Sue - The Alien and the Constitution - The Legal History of the ‘Alien’ Power of the Commonwealth
pp. 15-16
The rule of birthplace, where birth in the King’s ‘ligeance’ made one a subject,130 can be traced to at least 1290,131 when it was laid down that ‘all persons born on English soil, no matter what their parentage, owed allegiance to, and were therefore subjects of the King.’132 Parliament133 and the Courts134 confirmed that persons born in any territory, outside England, though belonging to the King, were subjects.135 The Courts further recognised that an alien’s son, born in England, ‘is English, and not an alien’136 for the child ‘is a liege-man,’ despite alien parents.137 Alternatively, birth out of the allegiance of the King would make one an alien, irrespective of the nationality of the parents.138 This decision follows the distinction of the tract writer John Ratsell who stated:Alyon is he who the fader is born and he hymselfe also borne out of the elegiaunce of our lord the kyng, but yf and alyon come and dwell in englond whyche is not of te kynges enemyes and here ad issu this is not aluin but englysh, also if an englysh man go over the see with the kyngs lycene and ther ad issu this issu is not alyon.139By Littleton’s time the demarcation of aliens and subjects was clear,140 with aliens those ‘born out of the ligeance of our soveraigne lord the king.’141 English law was recognising this demarcation in practice long before it explained it in theory.142
However, it was not until Sir Edward Coke’s influential opinion in Calvin’s Case (1608)143 that a ‘theory of allegiance and subjectship was fully articulated.’144 This case, regarded as the ‘pure milk of the common-law doctrine of allegiance,’145 is the most important event in the history of English nationality law.146 Indeed, its importance as the ‘earliest, most influential theoretical articulation’147 of the jus soli was appreciated by those who heard it,148 with Coke nominating it the most ‘elaborately, substantially, and judicially argued’ case he had ever heard of. 149 Calvin’s Case summed up and adapted the existing nationality law to the conditions of the modern territorial state,150 and articulated the nature of the bond between Monarch and subject.151 Despite citing few precedents152 the decision closely followed existing practice,153 and is now accepted as a case ‘of the highest and undoubted authority.’154
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established. In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying: "Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide." 6 U. S. 2 Cranch 64, 6 U. S. 119.
In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."
Well you have not yet demonstrated that it is wrong.
Yes, I find that most amazing. The outcome of Calvin's case was crucial to the well being of the Kingdom. Had it gone the other way, it would likely have sparked a civil war.
I find it amazing that 2 judges dissented. The entire power of the King pushing for the decision to come out the way it did, and two Judges had the stones to dissent?
Amazing.
I'm continued to be surprised how at any time it is convenient, you drop the act that Reconstruction after the Civil War was somehow authoritarian and actually leaning into outright tyranny, and at these convenient times you try instead to leverage the notion that it was somehow managerial instead and somehow fitting right in with progressivism.
That is the link that makes it nebulous.
So I need to know. Have the last few decades of yours and DiogenesLamp's arguments - that the Civil War and its outcome were tyrannical.... are you throwing all of that out into the wind to now claim it was actually managerial and not really all that tyrannical after all?
"Greenbacks were the first fiat currency issued by the United States. .... Now we have Federal Reserve Notes backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, not backed by anything but good faith, like greenbacks."
"Greenbacks were the first fiat currency issued by the United States. .... Now we have Federal Reserve Notes backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, not backed by anything but good faith, like greenbacks."
Not an aspect I focus on much, but so far as I know it is in fact true. Are you aware of fiat currency being used before Lincoln? My understanding is that money was made of precious metal prior to that, though there were "Continental Dollars" issued to fund the Revolutionary war. They became worthless, and then congress eventually redeemed them at partial value.
"Greenbacks were the first fiat currency issued by the United States. You may be too young to remember silver certificates issued by the U.S. Treasury. Now we have Federal Reserve Notes backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, not backed by anything but good faith, like greenbacks. Inflatable. They can simply prijnt more money and make all the money under your mattress worth less." (Note the full, unedited paragraph here)
Greenbacks were the first fiat currency issued by the United States. Now we have Federal Reserve Notes backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Therefore, Abraham Lincoln took the United States off of the gold standard.
This is no different than
More people eat ice cream in the summer. More people get skin cancer in the summer. Therefore, ice cream causes skin cancer.
Or what has now become my favorite.
Pluto was discovered in 1930. There were no Autism diagnoses before 1930. Therefore, Pluto causes Autism.
Guys. We make fun of the wokesters for doing this.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation: 5 Real-World Examples
The phrase “correlation does not imply causation” is often used in statistics to point out that correlation between two variables does not necessarily mean that one variable causes the other to occur.
Flip your theory.
"Correlation does not disprove causation."
You are welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.