No Kings parade celebrated - people reject authoritarian Trump

[_Miracle]

In the history of the US, there have been many times when the US has allowed Hispanic immigrants into the country for specific reasons. When government allows them 'in' legally, they are NOT illegals.

The illegal part comes when government changes and tries to make what was legal in the past to suddenly become illegal.

There is a difference with the Biden regime. The difference is the auto-pen... somebody else signing documents for Biden without his authorizing it.

In other words, the immigrants might have been illegal without their or anybody knowing it.


However, once they are 'in', they are as much people of the US as anybody else. They are Americans, and if this isn't taken into account by the authorities, the authorities are the ones who are illegal.

Were those people you call "illegal" working and living in the US before? They were "illegal" but some people had them working and paying their rents, their food?

And now someone starts calling on hate and xenophobia - on a "nativism" in a country where 99% of the actual natives were anihilated up to the last children and pregnant woman by those who now call other "criminals" and "illegals".

Not to forget that part of California and Texas and New Mexico were stolen and taken from Mexico, the Lousiana, Misouri, ... all from the French.

Seems to me that Mexicans are simply living in THEIR land.

Trump should know that real natives in the US did NOT have orange skin and yellow hair.

How far do you want to go back... Adam and Eve? This kind of thing has been happening for a long time.

I was talking about the immigrants that the US or a particular State invited in legally. If you want to talk about the history of nations subduing other nations, start a topic like that.

What you call stolen lands was agreed to by treaty at the time of a particular war. It's all about agreements. The history of the lands of your nation is similar. If you really are a Brit, check into your history to see how your nation ruled different areas of the world by force.

NO KINGS is not about Trump. It's about a money system that is buying rioters.

It's about a money system that has long been in tension with the oppression of humans ---with suppressing history and bigotry as it's handy dandy tools.

https://youtube.com/shorts/FyA0R_2VZHs?si=OuIdoFE3bXiiSOTU   ----LOL---- Italians will catch the tune ----Bella Ciao ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q0soLIS0es&ab_channel=TheDailyShow     ----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHJazntkmQg&ab_channel=NBCLA  ----- most of us do not hate our immigrants in Cali  ---expect resistance to these cosplaying bounty hunters

https://youtube.com/shorts/ybVyF0ry_-Q?si=RXw3YYZi6hE5PMV7

One of my favorites...
https://youtube.com/shorts/3zMdJfK_cb0?si=QqHOZFTjtzxbq6pX  ----this is auntie energy right here, watch to the end: they walk away without him


https://youtu.be/7ZmNLKlkUxQ?si=rQZnaazYgDAXQNVx -----Colbert.

https://youtube.com/shorts/x7tRp4orePw?si=_yXEQY3u9GRBFDnd   Again....it was larger than the last one despite his attempt to instill fear: there will be more of these

[paxmao]

In the history of the US, there have been many times when the US has allowed Hispanic immigrants into the country for specific reasons. When government allows them 'in' legally, they are NOT illegals.

The illegal part comes when government changes and tries to make what was legal in the past to suddenly become illegal.

There is a difference with the Biden regime. The difference is the auto-pen... somebody else signing documents for Biden without his authorizing it.

In other words, the immigrants might have been illegal without their or anybody knowing it.


However, once they are 'in', they are as much people of the US as anybody else. They are Americans, and if this isn't taken into account by the authorities, the authorities are the ones who are illegal.

Were those people you call "illegal" working and living in the US before? They were "illegal" but some people had them working and paying their rents, their food?

And now someone starts calling on hate and xenophobia - on a "nativism" in a country where 99% of the actual natives were anihilated up to the last children and pregnant woman by those who now call other "criminals" and "illegals".

Not to forget that part of California and Texas and New Mexico were stolen and taken from Mexico, the Lousiana, Misouri, ... all from the French.

Seems to me that Mexicans are simply living in THEIR land.

Trump should know that real natives in the US did NOT have orange skin and yellow hair.

How far do you want to go back... Adam and Eve? This kind of thing has been happening for a long time.

I was talking about the immigrants that the US or a particular State invited in legally. If you want to talk about the history of nations subduing other nations, start a topic like that.

What you call stolen lands was agreed to by treaty at the time of a particular war. It's all about agreements. The history of the lands of your nation is similar. If you really are a Brit, check into your history to see how your nation ruled different areas of the world by force.

NO KINGS is not about Trump. It's about a money system that is buying rioters.

It's about a money system that has long been in tension with the oppression of humans ---with suppressing history and bigotry as it's handy dandy tools.

https://youtube.com/shorts/FyA0R_2VZHs?si=OuIdoFE3bXiiSOTU   ----LOL---- Italians will catch the tune ----Bella Ciao ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q0soLIS0es&ab_channel=TheDailyShow     ----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHJazntkmQg&ab_channel=NBCLA  ----- most of us do not hate our immigrants in Cali  ---expect resistance to these cosplaying bounty hunters

https://youtube.com/shorts/ybVyF0ry_-Q?si=RXw3YYZi6hE5PMV7

One of my favorites...
https://youtube.com/shorts/3zMdJfK_cb0?si=QqHOZFTjtzxbq6pX  ----this is auntie energy right here, watch to the end: they walk away without him


https://youtu.be/7ZmNLKlkUxQ?si=rQZnaazYgDAXQNVx -----Colbert.

https://youtube.com/shorts/x7tRp4orePw?si=_yXEQY3u9GRBFDnd   Again....it was larger than the last one despite his attempt to instill fear: there will be more of these

It seems that after denying the no-Kings Parades, BA moves onto saying they are not related to Trump and later trying to re-purpose the parade for his own purposes related to financial liberty. It is all very funny to be honest.

Trump thinks that his mandate as President - and it is just some percentage points, not a 60% or the like - gives him the right to rule like a despot, which is shown in the number of executive orders soaring.

[BADecker]

~


It's about a money system that has long been in tension with the oppression of humans ---with suppressing history and bigotry as it's handy dandy tools.

https://youtube.com/shorts/FyA0R_2VZHs?si=OuIdoFE3bXiiSOTU Â  ----LOL---- Italians will catch the tune ----Bella Ciao ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q0soLIS0es&ab_channel=TheDailyShow   Â  ----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHJazntkmQg&ab_channel=NBCLA  ----- most of us do not hate our immigrants in Cali  ---expect resistance to these cosplaying bounty hunters

https://youtube.com/shorts/ybVyF0ry_-Q?si=RXw3YYZi6hE5PMV7

One of my favorites...
https://youtube.com/shorts/3zMdJfK_cb0?si=QqHOZFTjtzxbq6pX Â ----this is auntie energy right here, watch to the end: they walk away without him


https://youtu.be/7ZmNLKlkUxQ?si=rQZnaazYgDAXQNVx -----Colbert.

https://youtube.com/shorts/x7tRp4orePw?si=_yXEQY3u9GRBFDnd   Again....it was larger than the last one despite his attempt to instill fear: there will be more of these

It seems that after denying the no-Kings Parades, BA moves onto saying they are not related to Trump and later trying to re-purpose the parade for his own purposes related to financial liberty. It is all very funny to be honest.

Trump thinks that his mandate as President - and it is just some percentage points, not a 60% or the like - gives him the right to rule like a despot, which is shown in the number of executive orders soaring.

It seems that paxmao continually wants to get rid of the rights and freedoms of people everywhere, by making and keeping them subject to the actions of a handful of bankers and government people.

Check out the difference between a man/woman and a 'person' listed in government documents - https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf

[franky1]

oh badecker being silly again with his sovereign/freeman silly nonsense which has been debunked decades ago..*
.. get the hint badecker, that old cult religion your now learning/reciting, is outdated and debunked. keep up with the times, your way behind

what badecker does not realise is laws stopped using 'man' because women and children thought they could get away with things
what badecker does not realise is laws stopped using 'individual' or 'people' because people then started shell company/trust writing to hide their assets

so by utilising the word person which includes children and adults of any gender, and also corporations, trusts and any legal entity.. laws then applied to all things..
meaning that the idiots that called themselves freemen and sovereigns, are 'persons' too. meaning laws apply to them too...


*i was looking into the freeman/sovereign stuff two decades ago, back then it seemed an interesting topic of alternative living, but it was full of holes back then and more people were learning how full of crap it was.. it is like 5% lawful rhetoric but 95% B.S which then misinterprets the 5%, to make the 5% not as intended, thus worthless of utility within the cultish rhetoric they play with

[BADecker]

@frank1

As long as you continue to refuse to look into the law, you will probably keep on thinking the way you do.

[franky1]

@frank1

As long as you continue to refuse to look into the law, you will probably keep on thinking the way you do.

ive looked into the law, you however just look into 'sovereign' rhetiric that is 95% nonsense, but mentions 5% law verbiage, but in a manipulated way that just makes that 5% meaningless..

its you that needs to look outside of your sovereign leaning sites and learn how the real world works, then you can learn whats real and whats nonsense

[paxmao]

What I find so funny is that all those "libertarians" that claim stuff about "free man" some variation of the law (this is as old as Saint Thomas of Aquino if not much older) and want financial freedom are absolutely ok with a guy that:

- Is clearly going beyond in the execution of individual powers and completely unchecked by the highest courts (that HE appointed).
- Is cozy with Kim in NK and Putin in Ruzzia and any dictator out there honestly.

14th ammendment, section 1

“Section 1

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. ,”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued a major decision scaling back the power of federal judges to block presidential policies nationwide, in what is considered a major win for the Trump administration’s efforts to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors.

Read more at:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article309563940.html#storylink=cpy

What is the part that the Supreme Court finds confusing about the 14th ammendment?

And that is just an example, now two attorney generals are fired with no cause because they investigated January 6th assaults on the Capitol.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/28/politics/justice-department-doj-fires-jan-6-prosecutors-pam-bondi

Justice Department abruptly fires 3 prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 criminal cases

And this is the one that "Libertarians" support. They have certainly lost the right to claim anything about law.

[BADecker]

What I find so funny is that all those "libertarians" that claim stuff about "free man" some variation of the law (this is as old as Saint Thomas of Aquino if not much older) and want financial freedom are absolutely ok with a guy that:

- Is clearly going beyond in the execution of individual powers and completely unchecked by the highest courts (that HE appointed).
- Is cozy with Kim in NK and Putin in Ruzzia and any dictator out there honestly.

14th ammendment, section 1

“Section 1

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. ,”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued a major decision scaling back the power of federal judges to block presidential policies nationwide, in what is considered a major win for the Trump administration’s efforts to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors.

Read more at:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article309563940.html#storylink=cpy

What is the part that the Supreme Court finds confusing about the 14th ammendment?

And that is just an example, now two attorney generals are fired with no cause because they investigated January 6th assaults on the Capitol.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/28/politics/justice-department-doj-fires-jan-6-prosecutors-pam-bondi

Justice Department abruptly fires 3 prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 criminal cases

And this is the one that "Libertarians" support. They have certainly lost the right to claim anything about law.

So, you are ignorant enough that you ignore the 4th Amendment. In part it says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

So, how many 'persons' do you have? Are you one of your own persons? If so, it is by your own statement that you are. If not, what is the 'person' you are talking about?

----------

Note that if you are talking about Trump, above, the Contract Clause of the Constitution has given the people and the government the right to contract with each other as 'persons'. Just because people don't recognize that they are not 'persons' when they contract with government except if they indicate that they are, doesn't necessarily mean that they are in agreement with something a government 'person' does.

----------

So, I want to thank you for prompting me to bring this to the attention of people by your ignorant post - that they are not persons by law - so that some of them can wake up - Office of the Person - https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf.

If you don't want to wake up and become a man/woman rather than a person, it's fine by me. Lol.

[_Miracle]

It seems that after denying the no-Kings Parades, BA moves onto saying they are not related to Trump and later trying to re-purpose the parade for his own purposes related to financial liberty. It is all very funny to be honest.

Trump thinks that his mandate as President - and it is just some percentage points, not a 60% or the like - gives him the right to rule like a despot, which is shown in the number of executive orders soaring.

Expect No Kings 2.0 ;-)

Not sure why the White house is putting up their barricades today? Maybe they are finding out that they are uniting America, just not in the way they thought.

[_Miracle]

And to put some things in perspective for those who are unaware:

The LA riots and No Kings are not the same events but they are for the same cause.

There are bounty hunters dressed up as ICE taking people off the streets, out of schools, work AND court hearings.
This is an aggression against our people by our government. People are reacting, and filming and it may not be on the news yet but it IS happening and it is deeply wrong.

[franky1]

14th ammendment, section 1

“Section 1

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. ,”

the keywords are: 'persons' and 'jurisdiction'
historically this allowed registered slaves whom were recognised as US property, to then have children which would become citizens

however illegal immigrants dont have the same rights, coverage, inclusion and responsibilities as 'persons' in particular jurisdictions.
thus them having a child is not a recognised 'person' to then be a citizen

this means that a child born in america would not be separated from a parent if the parent(illegal immigrant) is removed from the US.
the child by not having a US citizenship will be treated just like the parent and be allowed to go back with the parents to their native country

if however the parent went through the correct process of getting citizenship for themselves, then the child gets it too(as long as granted before 18th birthday)

..
its worth noting, other countries dont offer birthright citizen
europe for instance grants infant citizenship via 'citizenship by descent' whereby if parents are european, the child gets to have european citizenship
which is the concept the US wishes to follow

its also worth noting, not many countries actually ever did offer default birthright citizenship

[paxmao]

I agree, there's going to be quite a few no-Kings. Again the same guy saying that he is into devolving power to the states eg. on abortoin, but he is not ok with devolving power to the states in anything that is not "convenient", such as migration and other.

[...]

So, you are ignorant enough that you ignore the 4th Amendment. In part it says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

So, how many 'persons' do you have? Are you one of your own persons? If so, it is by your own statement that you are. If not, what is the 'person' you are talking about?

[...]

BA, it is ok to be stupid, it is not OK to show it so publicly. I said 14th, not 4th. All persons born in the US are citizens. First this was applied to the slaves' children and now your modern slaves to which you call "illegals".

There is no doubt on the interpretation of this: anyone born in the US is a citizen. If you do not like that change the constitution.

[BADecker]

I agree, there's going to be quite a few no-Kings. Again the same guy saying that he is into devolving power to the states eg. on abortoin, but he is not ok with devolving power to the states in anything that is not "convenient", such as migration and other.

[...]

So, you are ignorant enough that you ignore the 4th Amendment. In part it says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

So, how many 'persons' do you have? Are you one of your own persons? If so, it is by your own statement that you are. If not, what is the 'person' you are talking about?

[...]

BA, it is ok to be stupid, it is not OK to show it so publicly. I said 14th, not 4th. All persons born in the US are citizens. First this was applied to the slaves' children and now your modern slaves to which you call "illegals".

There is no doubt on the interpretation of this: anyone born in the US is a citizen. If you do not like that change the constitution.

However, you didn't define 'US'. And since 'persons' is defined as artificial entities (except when men/women say that they are persons), this means that you as a man/woman can authorize the existence of a US citizen as long as you follow the US rules for doing so.

This is why and how so many men/women who live in non-US countries, and maybe have never even been to America, can seem to be US citizens... because the US allowed them to create US citizens on some paperwork, even though they didn't really realize what they were doing when they seemed to get a Social Security number, etc., but really got some benefit for the artificial entity (person) they created. Of course, they control their person/entity somewhat, and get the benefit because of this.

You really need to look at the law. US law is designed to trick people from around the world into thinking that they are US citizens, when really, it is an artificial entity that they created that is the US citizen. Look at America grow because of this.

[montaga]

How crazy world politics is, stop taling about the fathers penis and Ukraine christians will no longer be sacrificed. One big club...
https://youtu.be/1103XwJ2N9c

[Vod]

but many many Mexicans are actually natives - genetically - from Mayans, Aztecs and the like in maybe 80%. The Spanish conquer caused certainly plenty of pain in Latin America, but the locals were NOT systematically anihilated - more of the contrary - got mixed.

That is not true.    I visited one of the pyramids and learned their history - 90% of the indigenous people were wiped out in the first century of "modernization".    Even today, they make up less than 20% of the population.

We all evolved from Africa.   Some migrated north, lost their tan, and enslaved those who did not.  Then some sailed to America, bringing their slaves with them.   Everyone black, white, asian, slavick, etc, has an immigrant to the Americas in their history.  Now that so many immigrants are born here, it is ignorant to tell someone to go back to their own country, unless you are indigenous.  

Illegal immigrants shouldn't have the rights of the country they are squatting in, but they do have human rights.    Trump forgets that - he's probably never squat in his life.  :/

[hellflame]

{ but many many Mexicans are actually natives}

This is actually true because California and some other states were part of Mexico so many Mexicans would naturally have roots in these regions.

[Vod]

{ but many many Mexicans are actually natives}

This is actually true because California and some other states were part of Mexico so many Mexicans would naturally have roots in these regions.

If 90% of native Mexicans were wiped out in the first century, that would mean those roots come from immigrants.   Immigrants cannot be native to a land by definition. 

If by native you mean from Spain, then yes, many Mexicans are natives.   But real natives in that area spoke Arawakan, Aymaran, Cariban, Chibchan, Jê, Pano-Tacanan, Quechuan, Tupian, Tucanoan and Yanomaman. (thx to AI for research)

How far back will Trump take his no citizenship birthright?  His ancestors immigrated to America.  :/

[paxmao]

BA, don't be an idiot. A person is a person - legally it can also be a company, but since companies are not "born" the constitution says you get citizenship if you are born in the US. It does not matter if your parents were from Africa, Guatemala or whereever. You want to change that, change the constitution, do not squeeze through the backdoor.

{ but many many Mexicans are actually natives}

This is actually true because California and some other states were part of Mexico so many Mexicans would naturally have roots in these regions.

If 90% of native Mexicans were wiped out in the first century, that would mean those roots come from immigrants.   Immigrants cannot be native to a land by definition. 

If by native you mean from Spain, then yes, many Mexicans are natives.   But real natives in that area spoke Arawakan, Aymaran, Cariban, Chibchan, Jê, Pano-Tacanan, Quechuan, Tupian, Tucanoan and Yanomaman. (thx to AI for research)

How far back will Trump take his no citizenship birthright?  His ancestors immigrated to America.  :/

I am not sure where are you getting your info, but if you have visited Chichen Iza, Coba, Tulun... they are mostly all of the original Mayan and other races (as native as it gets). If you look at most Mexicans and some Spaniards, you will find that they are mostly different.

You may be confusing Latin America with North America in which effectively the natives were obliterated and the few remaning live in reserves.

[BADecker]

BA, don't be an idiot. A person is a person - legally it can also be a company, but since companies are not "born" the constitution says you get citizenship if you are born in the US. It does not matter if your parents were from Africa, Guatemala or whereever. You want to change that, change the constitution, do not squeeze through the backdoor.

~

Government only operates by definitions of the words it uses. Government people may not know those definitions, and so may act illegally at times. It's when the definitions are brought up in court that things are straightened out.

I showed you (a silly Brit) some of the legal definition of 'person'. I'm not here to show you the whole definition of law. That's for the courts and the people to hash out.

But see how nice I am? I show it to you again. All you have to do is look at the law to see it. The people simply think that they are persons. When they act (out of ignorance) like they are persons, government doesn't have any choice but to agree with what they say about themselves.

Office of the Person - https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf




EDIT: Just to show you how far off you are, one of the things NOT listed in the definition of 'person' in the law is 'person' itself. This shows that when a person is not listed as a person, the whole law doesn't have any meaning. We are free. Government is nothing. We aren't even persons. Government can't touch us. When they seem to, it's really us doing it to ourselves.

[paxmao]

BA, don't be an idiot. A person is a person - legally it can also be a company, but since companies are not "born" the constitution says you get citizenship if you are born in the US. It does not matter if your parents were from Africa, Guatemala or whereever. You want to change that, change the constitution, do not squeeze through the backdoor.

~

Government only operates by definitions of the words it uses. Government people may not know those definitions, and so may act illegally at times. It's when the definitions are brought up in court that things are straightened out.

I showed you (a silly Brit) some of the legal definition of 'person'. I'm not here to show you the whole definition of law. That's for the courts and the people to hash out.

But see how nice I am? I show it to you again. All you have to do is look at the law to see it. The people simply think that they are persons. When they act (out of ignorance) like they are persons, government doesn't have any choice but to agree with what they say about themselves.

Office of the Person - https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf




EDIT: Just to show you how far off you are, one of the things NOT listed in the definition of 'person' in the law is 'person' itself. This shows that when a person is not listed as a person, the whole law doesn't have any meaning. We are free. Government is nothing. We aren't even persons. Government can't touch us. When they seem to, it's really us doing it to ourselves.

Again, do not be dumb. How many things that are called a "person" can be "born" in the US? As usual your ideas are completely missing the context. Companies, entities or anything else are not "born", so there is no doubt as what does this mean.

In fact, this ammendment was widely used for the descendants of the African slaves your country kidnapped during decades (centuries?) - so go tell their children now that they are not US citizens because they are not "persons". I hope you do that in a dark drinking hole in an all black community in  Chicago to get a direct feedback on their views.