A lot of Christians have no values and those that do, tend to pay lip service so as not to offend people!!!

That Hillary Clinton deserved our support in an unconditional manner to defeat the clearly psychotic piece of shit but some just couldn’t do it.

It started with St Ronnie of Reagan repealing the Fairness Doctrine, enabling right wing billionaires to begin their decades long brainwashing of the American public, and it really gained steamed when Newt Gingrich mainstreamed hate as a path to political power.

But before I forget Newt Gingrich was architect of all of this, him and Steve Bannon.

I am referring to how the piece of shit got into office in the first place, there was an unfortunate period of time when a certain group on the left couldn’t help themselves but the bash Hillary.

...and their legal begals, the Federalist nee Feudalist Society.

And while race was the cause that most fought for, the real cause was for the rich to control the masses. And that is where we are today.

the sooner the better, but his legacy and sycophants will be left behnd but we can't beat the likes of MTG, couch boy Vance and Li'l Mario, we don't deserve to wiin.

And back to trump, he's the driving force behind this all, but his dementia is becoming more and more apparent which will lose the rethugs followrs. We will beat their asses.

As far as Chrstian values, they're ok if on subscribes, but trying to impose them on others, no. And slavery, the hell to the no. We're not going back.

Christian groups were front and center in the Union Civil War effort (my grandmother grew up in a Swedish offshoot of Henry Ward Beecher's church). They were front and center in the high tide of the Northern advance (Baptist minister Martin Luther King leading children on a march in Birmingham).

What we're seeing is a neutering over nearly a century of progressive Christianity by a well-funded movement that replaced a living gospel with a focus on personal reward and holiness defined by opposition to selected outsiders.

… for both good and ill. Religion has been a powerful force, and unthinking people can be manipulated.

in the civil rights movement.

The Confederacy won the day Lincoln was killed, and Johnson abandoned reconstruction and for 100 years, the government looked the other way while Jim Crow became the law of the land.

The Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts brought a temporary reprieve, but the Roberts court saw to it that all the hard work to bring equality was largely undone.

Again from Tad Stoermer

To overturn birthright citizenship, SCOTUS would have to overturn a constitutional amendment- how do you see that unfolding? What would the ruling say?

“Re: 14th amendment; Never Mind”.

Such a ruling would affect republicans and democrats alike, such as a certain president whose mother was born in Scotland.

It’s not going to happen.

If the truth of what he says makes you uncomfortable, well, you don't have to watch.

And his content is created to generate clicks.

If he thinks SOCTUS is going to overturn the 14th amendment, he cannot be taken seriously.

Rather just posting videos, why not engage and answer my question- how do you see the overturn of the 14th amendment unfolding?

The present court is no friend of precedent, and this regime is hostile to it.
It will be narrowed further to restrict citizenship.

A precedent is a previous ruling; an amendment is black letter law.

The previous ruling didn’t address birthright citizenship, so I’m not sure how the “path was opened” for anything.

You’re either born on US soil, or you’re not.

He says any precedent (past ruling) can be ignored or overturned “just like Dobbs”, but an amendment is not a precedent, it is part of the constitution, and the various past rulings and interpretation of the 14th amendment may have affected individuals’ rights and freedoms as citizens, but there has never been any question of removing/revoking/reclassifying anyone’s citizenship status so that they may be subject to forcible deportation, because that is black letter law in plain English, with not even an unwisely placed comma (as in the 2nd amendment) to create a loophole for reinterpretation.

For all the horrors of Jim Crow, I am unaware of any case seeking to revoke the citizenship of former slaves and deport them back to Africa (although there were racists who made that argument, it was never a case in the courts). Stoermer references the case of the Chinese man, which of course failed and he retained his citizenship.

Stoermer says SCOTUS will just go back to the 19th century and Article III to justify rewriting the 14th amendment; first of all, poppycock.

Secondly, such a ruling would mean that every amendment except for the original Bill of Rights is subject to reinterpretation (Stoermer implies as much); such an interpretation/ruling would open the door for future presidents to ignore all SCOTUS rulings as irrelevant nonsense. With the imperial presidency already established, who’s gonna stop them?

Lastly, Stoermer fails to convincingly describe just how the 14th would be overturned, he essentially says “they are just gonna do it” and mentions the tools they might use.

I wasn’t impressed.

Sounds like you're whistling while walking by the graveyard.

You’re either born on US soil, or you’re not.

What’s to reinterpret?

There can be no reinterpretation, only a denial of reality, and to do so would destroy any vestiges of legitimacy remaining for SCOTUS, and make all future rulings irrelevant and subject to being ignored by future administrations.

They won’t dare, because if they did, democrats would likely win supermajorities in both houses in the midterms, and the court would be expanded in 2028 to neuter the fascist majority.

“Reinterpreting” the 14th amendment on birthright citizenship would open the door to “reinterpret” slavery, and the Dems could campaign on that and win.

Just the way Jews in 1933 believed that they were safe because they were German

It’s how.

You are either born in US soil, or you are not.

How do they overturn the 14th amendment on birthright citizenship, yet prevent the next president from stripping Trump of his citizenship because his mother wasn’t born here? For that matter, how would they write an opinion that “reinterpreted” birthright citizenship, but left the ban on slavery in place?

The Doom Squad folks are always certain that “they” (Trump, SCOTUS, etc) will just do it, whatever “it” is (overturning amendments, nationwide martial law) because they have surrendered in advance, and have accepted that this fascist regime is omnipotent and that resistance is futile.

Like I said, any SCOTUS decision resembling a modification of birthright citizenship will result in a blue tsunami in the midterms unlike any seen before, and result in the court relinquishing any authority it may attempt to claim in the future.

So, are you willing to put forth what you imagine an opinion overturning birthright citizenship would look like? Just write a paragraph describing the reasoning and parameters such a ruling would contain.

And it's not about them overturning birthright citizenship, it's about the little procedural steps they take to chip away at the 14th, 15th, 19th, and even the 13th amendments.

At the moment, the guardrails are down.

its demise, with it being completely destroyed by 1890.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era

snip

Throughout the war, the Union was confronted with the issue of how to administer captured areas and handle slaves escaping to Union lines. The United States Army played a vital role in establishing a free labor economy in the South, protecting freedmen's rights, and creating educational and religious institutions. Despite its reluctance to interfere with slavery, Congress passed the Confiscation Acts to seize Confederates' slaves, providing a precedent for President Abraham Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Congress established a Freedmen's Bureau to provide much-needed food and shelter to the newly freed slaves. As it became clear the Union would win, Congress debated the process for readmission of seceded states. Radical and moderate Republicans disagreed over the nature of secession, conditions for readmission, and desirability of social reforms. Lincoln favored the "ten percent plan" and vetoed the Wade–Davis Bill, which proposed strict conditions for readmission. Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, just as fighting was drawing to a close. He was replaced by Andrew Johnson, who vetoed Radical Republican bills, pardoned Confederate leaders, and allowed Southern states to enact draconian Black Codes that restricted the rights of freedmen. His actions outraged many Northerners and stoked fears the Southern elite would regain power. Radical Republicans swept to power in the 1866 midterm elections, gaining majorities in both houses of Congress.

In 1867–68, the Radical Republicans enacted the Reconstruction Acts over Johnson's vetoes, setting the terms by which former Confederate states could be readmitted to the Union. Constitutional conventions held throughout the South gave Black men the right to vote. New state governments were established by a coalition of freedmen, supportive white Southerners, and Northern transplants. They were opposed by "Redeemers," who sought to restore white supremacy and reestablish Democratic Party control of Southern governments and society. Violent groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, White League, and Red Shirts, engaged in paramilitary insurgency and terrorism to disrupt Reconstruction governments and terrorize Republicans.[3] Congressional anger at Johnson's attempts to veto radical legislation led to his impeachment, but he was not removed from office.

Under Johnson's successor, President Ulysses S. Grant, Radical Republicans enacted additional legislation to enforce civil rights, such as the Ku Klux Klan Act and Civil Rights Act of 1875. However, resistance to Reconstruction by Southern whites and its high cost contributed to its losing support in the North. The 1876 presidential election was marked by Black voter suppression in the South, and the result was close and contested. An Electoral Commission resulted in the Compromise of 1877, which awarded the election to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes on the understanding that federal troops would cease to play an active role in regional politics. Efforts to enforce federal civil rights in the South ended in 1890 with the failure of the Lodge Bill.

Historians disagree about the legacy of Reconstruction. Criticism focuses on the failure to prevent violence, corruption, starvation and disease. Some consider the Union's policy toward freed slaves as inadequate and toward former slaveholders as too lenient. However, Reconstruction is credited with restoring the federal Union, limiting reprisals against the South, and establishing a legal framework for racial equality via constitutional rights to national birthright citizenship, due process, equal protection of the laws, and male suffrage regardless of race.

snip

LBJ brought the curs to heel.

Ray-Gun lead the new CSA.

Culminated in Krasnov Installation in 2024.

We are in a cultural war. We will bring the maga pub voters down to hell. We will then destroy their souls and treat them like they did us - defeated.

He is the reason my parents were able to give me the best of start possible -

Then thrive. HE is the one that made Blacks Americans. We suffered 100 years - we were even left out of the 'Raw Deal'.

LBJ made us whole. He, Biden, Obama, Eisenhower and yes even Truman (desegrated the military) made us Human Beings in America.

Now the maga pub VOTERS want that stripped away.

I'm fully aware that he did all that he could.

And I know that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Would that he had pushed the boundaries further.

If you've read it, you can see trump in the Ignatius J. Reilly character.

"How the South Won the War" by Heather Cox Richardson

"American Nations" by Colin Woodard

You will see that this line of thought is common among historians and based on good evidence. In my opinion, the single greatest mistake our nation has ever made was not being harder on the former Confederacy in the wake of the Civil War. All CSA officers should have been declared guilty of treason. Instead we allowed the Lost Cause to take root, then grow and infect much of the rest of the nation.

Many if not most confederates were very distrustful of a strong central government, so Trump and co. taking over like this would be an anathema to them. Yeah the general stated belief of the MAGA crowd of getting the government out of our lives sort of corresponds to the mid 1800s Democratic Party's distrustful feelings toward consolidated power, but I don't think it's the same at all --- because the Trumpists DO want an imperial central state - just with themselves in charge. The Confederates really didn't, and there were even a couple of CSA states that threatened secession from the confederacy because it was too centralized in their view.