Free Republic

Why are you babbling stupid nonsense? Are you comparing abolitionists to Hitler's anti-Semitism??? How insane is that?

I'm saying that it is just as disingenuous to claim that an agenda of abandoning Blacks in Africa is "freeing the slaves" as a Hitler apologist claiming that the rounding-up of Jews was just "getting them out of the ghetto".

Really?? Genocide??

Which came closer to being actually exterminated, the Jews or the Native Americans? Who lost a larger portion of their population because of policies and direct actions taken by their respective governments?

No again. In no state prior to 1860, were laws intended to "keep Blacks out".

...Ohio

I have to ask, are you just posting things and hoping that no one tries to confirm your claims? You must think that people are too stupid to check, because Ohio, in particular, had some of the most draconian and racist laws imaginable.

Even Oregon, which had the most exclusionary laws of all, still recorded 128 freed-blacks in its first census, in 1860.

Which represents a real roll-back on that 1844 law allowing Oregonians to WHIP any Black merely entering the territory. There's that progress that Progressing guy must be thinking about.

I know I am turning back to a necrotic thread, but I could not help but notice that there is a malingering point of confusion for some people wherein "tax-paying" is misidentified with "tax collecting". Tax collectors are not paying consumers' taxes for them. A map of revenue gained through the income tax system will highlight the location of IRS offices occupied by bureaucrats who, themselves, are not actually PAYING the tax. The current Treasury Secretary is Scott Bessent. I will have to cut that guy a check next year, which he will COLLECT.

But for anyone who would still spitefully insist on the ridiculous claim that the final consumer does not bear the true pass-through expense of a tax already collected, I have a proposal to test your commitment to that claim. I've just read that the cost of heating oil in New Hampshire is about $3.63. Well, I think those are rookie numbers! I think my fellow Texans, generous folk we all are, should help those people achieve that $10 milestone I know they deserve by COLLECTING a 200% "extraction" tax right at the wellhead. Then I can flaunt map showing how much Texans somehow PAID in taxes for those poor, freezing bastards. I sure hope they appreciate it! If you don't agree, then maybe you aren't a patriot.

So, anti-slavery voters were neither new, nor a minority, nor based on fears of slave-workers taking away their jobs.

You're attempting to deceive. Most voters were "anti-slavery" as much as Hitler was "anti-jews-living-in-ghettos". The anti-slavery Venn diagram overlaps more than just emancipation, it also touches on segregation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. The emancipation faction represented by humanitarians like the Stowe family really WERE in the minority. Every state carved out of the "Free Soil" enacted measures to both keep Blacks out and keep Natives down, and they WERE driven by a fear of labor competition.

how is it universal?...

Because nobody is exempt from the Fed's claim of ownership of private labor.

Amid the outrage, an anonymous Instagram account called the Nantucket Brief called out the influencer, calling her the 'Nantucket scammer.'

Oh, so she DOES understand the culture and belongs there.

Payout should be based solely on what was paid into the system by the individual.

The problem is that, for at least half a century, the fund has been paying out far MORE to recipients than they ever contributed.

Yeah, the Boomer bomb is going to go off just in time to absolutely impoverish Gen X, just as it was intended. The greatest wealth transfer in history and the greatest swindle.

Those lands that Lee wants to turn private are adjoining urban areas like Las Vegas and SLC. They are mostly flat lands, not high mountain ranges.

Yeah, everybody. It's just some high-growth potential land that our masters at Blackrock want. If we don't transfer it to them now, some laboring American families might get it later!

I wonder if Harvard had a companion school? Surely those enlightened Puritans must have been doing that sort of out reach, while the Southerners were cultivating the sort of people who would give us Know-Nothings (that is sarcasm-—and for full disclosure I had people on the Mayflower, and also some in Virginia dating back at least before the founding of Harvard)

I am sure you'll be pleased to learn that Harvard was a desperate "buzzer beater" shot at depriving William & Mary of the claim of being first. Harvard was a ridiculous laughingstock institution hosted in a barn and stocked with a curriculum of store-bought pedestrian books taught by a founding generation of semi-literates having no degrees. Harvard's first round of graduates were just a bunch of self-promoting midwits who granted degrees upon each other. At the time of its founding, William & Mary greatly surpassed Harvard in quality and reputation.

Yeah, then there was that whole draft thing. Dipshit.

Which immediately resulted in our only lost war. They were the only generation of Americans who could have lost to impoverished sandal-clad illiterates.

Boomers? I always thought of this as more a Gen X thing.

It is. There is simply no end to Boomer grift at the expense of GenX. The Babies were the most coddled and mothered generation in human history, resulting in their eternal infantilization. It was GenX which was left to raise itself so that the Babies could run around like perpetual teenagers. The author is a fool.

They have been shoveling this dung around since Clinton: Project Megiddo comes to mind.

You are correct. It really kicked off with the development of the so-called "fusion centers" in which government employees are co-staffed with "house experts", which is really just sub-leasing agents to the SPLC and ADL as attack dogs.

Make

Anatolia

Greek

Again

The real problem is that the unproductive city-dwellers have been undercharged for the value of their sustenance. The farmers could easily pay those taxes if the expense was passed through to the consumer. Trump should offer a short-term loan program to relieve them in exchange for drastically raising the prices of food for urban scum.

This guy, TIK, is hands down the best historian who educates on history of both Communism and NAZI/Hitler.

His research and presentation of purely modern subject matter is really good, but whenever he attempts to reach back into philosophical history for grounding, he merely demonstrates his own incurable ignorance about that whole broad field. He believes that the foundational principles of Scholastic Realism (the cornerstone philosophy of organized Christianity throughout most of its history, and the underpinning of TRUE conservative thought) are somehow the source inspiration for leftist ideology and he constructs insufferably stupid ad absurdum straw men to appeal to an audience of (he assumes) the lesser educated. He has erected in his own mind obstacles to prevent his own contrary understanding of the development of the ideologies about which he is concerned.

He's fine on most things happening after the French Revolution, but his philosophical bigotry makes him otherwise unreliable.

Cornell Law Review is citable in any court.

Reprints of Li'l Abner may also be cited, but neither is authoritative. DOJ and third parties cannot create powers by way of proclamation.

If you don’t like their pieces, look directly at the enabling statutes. Better yet, try out your kooky claim with the FBI some time.

When apologists for that particular branch of the Mafia look back in the record for a declarative "act of creation", they always have to settle for it's first appearance as an expenditure in the federal budget. Why would they do that if they can just refer us to the institutional charter?

Be sure to remind them about not having arrest powers.

I didn't really claim that they can't arrest. I said the power to investigate crimes after-the-fact didn't confer the power to police. After all, even private people can investigate and arrest. But then, you hold views only someone with your reading disability would likely believe.

For a lot of people in the Appalachians, the Confederacy was the occupation force.

Their descendants would live to see their homes seized to create a national park for the benefit of northerners who like to hike.

Nonsense. A county sheriff has no special authority outside the County that elects them. Even then, they are subject to federal law and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution just like every other local and state resident.

You clearly have never studied the subject. The Supremacy Clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding", obviously is NOT saying that FedGov is supreme. It IS saying that the CONSTITUTION is supreme and that, therefore, laws made in accordance with (pursuant to) the Constitution enjoy supremacy over laws which are *not pursuant*, regardless of origin. FedGov laws are found to not be Constitutional all the time, which could never happen if your understanding of the Constitution were correct.

From the DOJ and Cornell Law:

...So, not a citable authority.

I think everyone in this thread needs to study just what, in constitutional law, "police powers" actually means. I doesn't mean what most of you think it means. Though the power to police confers the power to investigate, the power to investigate in no way confers the power to police. In constitutional law, policing power is the designated authority to maintain a legally controlling presence to direct others in accordance with law, with the power to intercede in instances of law-breaking and investigate after-the-fact being implicit. Police powers are on-going and ever present, whereas investigative powers are merely "episodic".

The FBI absolutely has police powers. Next?

Well, actually, they don't. It is an unchartered organization operating without delegation of powers, the whole validity of which rests upon their appearance as a line-item in the budget. They are FedGov's hired in-house detectives and the whole reason they do not have to abide by all the same strictures which are applied to real police (recording interviews, not entrapping innocents, not lying to judges/juries) is that they aren't real police. They get to act just like slimeball PIs.