[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".

"Enter Harris, Stage Lef"t

Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter

Jesse Watters: Don’t buy this excuse from the Secret Service

Video shows Trump shooter crawling into position while folks point him out to law enforcement

Eyewitness believes there was a 'noticeable' difference in security at Trump's rally

Trump Assassination Attempt

We screamed for 3 minutes at police and Secret Service. They couldn’t see him, so they did nothing. EYEWITNESS SPEAKS OUT — I SAW THE ASSASSIN CRAWLING ACROSS THE ROOF.

Video showing the Trump Rally shooter dead on the rooftop

Court Just Nailed Hillary in $6 Million FEC Violation Case, 45x Bigger Than Trump's $130k So-Called Violation

2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Mythical inalienable rights.?
Source: Crazy Guy
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 6, 2017
Author: nolu chan
Post Date: 2017-02-06 03:25:38 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 19367
Comments: 56

Nolu Chan has just posted another rather remarkable claim.

(It is an) --- insufferable claim that RKBA is an inalienable right given by God Almighty hisself. The Constitution recognizes capital punishment which takes away all rights, including the mythical inalienable rights.

nolu chan posted on 2017-02-06


Poster Comment:

Any comments?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 53.

#2. To: tpaine (#0)

Nolu is a bright guy. He has a sharp legal mind, but a Pharisaic one, like Paul of Tarsus. He believes in the rule of law above all other things. Now, what he said there is absolutely true, in the sense that if your right to life truly were UNALIENABLE, then you could not be executed for crimes. (To argue with ME, Nolu would point out - correctly again - that "unalienable" does not mean somebody can't take it from you in punishment for crime, just that you cannot contract it away). Once again, that would be his assertion of the rule of law as the supreme rule of life.

Obviously lawyers like the idea of Rule-of-Law uber alles, the "Master Key", because they possess it and, therefore, have greater power than others.

All of these things are always about power and fear.

On another thread, strict legalism was being used to justify (as if that were possible) the German invasion of France and the Low Countries and Scandinavia and Poland in World War II.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-06   6:45:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

On another thread, strict legalism was being used to justify (as if that were possible) the German invasion of France and the Low Countries and Scandinavia and Poland in World War II.

Bullshit.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9

[Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France.

France declared war on Germany. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France? Who could have done such a thing? A country should not declare a war it is not prepared to fight. By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-08   16:41:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: nolu chan (#7)

Bullshit.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9

[Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. France declared war on Germany. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France? Who could have done such a thing? A country should not declare a war it is not prepared to fight. By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful.

You're not as smart as I made you out to be.

Belgium did not declare war on Germany. Holland did not declare war on Germany. Luxembourg didn't. Denmark didn't. Norway didn't.

Nor did any of them attack Germany, carry out cross-border raids, anything. They were simply invaded by the Germans, because the Nazis were criminal thugs who broke the peace.

That's why they were tried and hanged as criminals, breakers of the peace, when the war was over.

They broke the law when they invaded Poland. That gave France and Britain, and Russia and everybody else, the RIGHT to attack them.

The UK and France declared war, justly. You say that gave the Germans the "right" to invade France - sort of like a criminal has the "right" to go in an shoot up a police station because they are trying to stop him.

But none of that list of countries above declared war on Germany. The Germans overran them anyway, completely without a fig leaf of justification.

They were murderers, and criminals. And they paid for their crimes very dearly.

I'm surprised that you don't see that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-08   17:01:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

Bullshit.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9

[Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. France declared war on Germany. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France? Who could have done such a thing? A country should not declare a war it is not prepared to fight. By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful.

You're not as smart as I made you out to be.

Belgium did not declare war on Germany. Holland did not declare war on Germany. Luxembourg didn't. Denmark didn't. Norway didn't.

I did not say Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, or Norway declared war on Germany.

Vicomte13 said: The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer ... France.

France did declare war on Germany.

The UK and France declared war, justly. You say that gave the Germans the "right" to invade France - sort of like a criminal has the "right" to go in an shoot up a police station because they are trying to stop him.

The question is not whether France's declaration of was was "just" or "unjust."

Germany had not attacked France and had not declared war against France. Ditto the United States.

France declared war on Germany on 3 Sep 1939.

So you mean that when France declared war on Germany, Germany was supposed to surrender to France?

If France declares war against Germany (or anyone else), the other party has the right to take them seriously and conquer them.

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

In 1939, Britain and France offered military support to Poland in the likely case of a German invasion. In the dawn of 1 September 1939, the German Invasion of Poland began. France and the United Kingdom declared war on 3 September, after an ultimatum for German forces to immediately withdraw their forces from Poland was met without reply. Following this, Australia (3 September), New Zealand (3 September), South Africa (6 September) and Canada (10 September), declared war on Germany. British and French commitments to Poland were met politically but they adopted a long-war strategy and mobilised for defensive land operations against Germany, while a trade blockade was imposed and the pre-war re-armament was accelerated, ready for an eventual invasion of Germany.

On 7 September, in accordance with their alliance with Poland, France began the Saar Offensive with an advance from the Maginot Line 5 km (3.1 mi) into the German-occupied Saar. France had mobilised 98 divisions (all but 28 of them reserve or fortress formations) and 2,500 tanks against a German force consisting of 43 divisions (32 of them reserves) and no tanks. The French advanced until they met the then thin and undermanned Siegfried Line. On 17 September, the French supreme commander, Maurice Gamelin gave the order to withdraw French troops to their starting positions; the last of them left Germany on 17 October. Following the Saar Offensive, a period of inaction called the Phoney War (the French Drôle de guerre, joke war or the German Sitzkrieg, sitting war) set in between the belligerents.

[...]

On 10 October 1939, Britain refused Hitler's offer of peace and on 12 October, France did the same.

[...]

So, France offered military assistance to Poland if they were attacked. Poland was attacked. Poland fell. France came from behind the Maginot Line and held a 10-day parade and retreated, not doing much good for Poland.

The invasion of Belgium, Holland, and France was conducted in 1940.

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

Popular reaction in Germany

Hitler had expected a million Germans to die in conquering France; instead, his goal was accomplished in just six weeks with only 27,000 Germans killed, 18,400 missing, and 111,000 wounded, a little more than one third of the total German casualties in the Battle of Verdun during World War I. The unexpectedly swift victory resulted in a wave of euphoria among the German population and a strong upsurge in war-fever. Hitler's personal popularity reached its peak with the celebration of France's capitulation on 6 July 1940:

Germany sought to get to the Atlantic in order to attack Britain who had also declared war against Germany. It appears they chose the path of least resistance.

If France was prepared to fight a war, it should have not declared one.

Vicomte13 wrote, "The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France."

WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France???

The United States had not been attacked and was not at war. It was in a declared state of neutrality until after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-08   18:33:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: nolu chan (#14)

WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France???

The civilized world.

Germany committed the crime of starting the war. They defeated Poland, then invaded their little Western neighbors - more crime - and of course overran France. They were too weak to take out Britain, were defeated at sea by the British Navy, and defeated in the air by the Royal Air Force.

And so then it was just a matter of time, for Britain to wait while Germany, cut off from international trade, slowly imploded as in World War I.

The Germans doubled down their madness and invaded Russia, which they did not have the right to do either.

And then they declared war on the USA, also, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

So, at war with every other major power on the planet except Japan, they sank under the weight of the combined forces of their enemies, who swamped them.

But when it was just 1 on 1 versus the British, the Germans lost in the air, they lost on the sea, and they lost in North Africa also, where they faced off on land.

Starting the war in the first place by invading another country was a criminal act. It was a criminal act that was bound to have war as a repercussion. The Germans were so delusive they actually thought they could win. So, they were criminal madmen. And they ended up swinging at the end of a rope, or against the wall in a firing squad.

And that was that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-08   19:04:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Vicomte13 (#19)

WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France???

The civilized world.

So, France declared war on Germany, and it was the duty of some amorphous "civilized world" to bail their ass out and fight their war for them.

Who in that "civilized world" could have prevented Germany from overrunning France? What power, short of the Marvel Comics superheroes could have accomplished this mission impossible?

Germany committed the crime of starting the war. They defeated Poland, then invaded their little Western neighbors - more crime - and of course overran France. They were too weak to take out Britain, were defeated at sea by the British Navy, and defeated in the air by the Royal Air Force.

Whatever Germany did, they did not unlawfully attack France. France declared war on Germany. France made themselves a valid target of acts of war. The United States had no obligation to fight a war because France declared one against Germany.

You fantasize that Germany lacked the power to take out Britain and that they were defeated in the air by the Royal Air Force.

In truth, Germany ran the British off the continent and back to their island. The Germans did not surrender at Dunkirk. The British Army escaped across the water. The Germans lacked the attack or transport vessels to invade by sea.

The Germans were primarily stopped by the Russians, and defeated by the Russians and Americans. It was the Russians who inflicted the most casualties against the Germans.

The Royal Navy hardly defeated the Germans at sea. You seem to have mistaken them for the United States Navy. Germany did not exactly have a huge navy to start with.

The British did as well as they did only because of the massive assistance, and the full scale entry, of the United States.

Declaration of war. A public and formal proclamation by a nation, through its executive or legislative department, that a state of wr exists between itself and another nation, and forbidding all persons to aid or assist the enemy.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

B. Formalities and recognition

69. LOIAC relates to hostilities carried out between sovereign States, regard-less of any formal declaration of war.155 Indeed, there does not even have to be recognition of a formal state of war. The reason is that war between sovereign States can exist either in the technical sense (commencing with a formal declaration of war by one State against its adversary) or in the material sense (namely, as a result of the comprehensive use of armed force in the relations between two States, irrespective of any formal declaration).156

70. LOIAC is brought to bear upon the conduct of hostilities between sovereign States, even if these hostilities fall short of war, namely, constitute a mere incident.157 Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions appropriately proclaims in its first paragraph:

[T]he present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.158

- - - - - - - - - -

155 See C. Greenwood, 'Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law', Handbook 45, 49.

156 On the distinction between war in the technical and in the material sense, see Dinstein, supra note 12, at 9-10.

157 See ibid., 17.

158 Geneva Convention (I), supra note 27, at 461; Geneva Convention (II), supra note 66, at 487; Geneva Convention (III), supra note 20, at 512; Geneva Convention (IV), supra note 66, at 580.

You seem to want to digress into the entirety of WW2 in your effort to not explain how it was somehow illegal for Germany to attact France after France declared war on Germany, or to identify WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France, or by what miracle France was to be saved from itself.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-11   1:05:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: nolu chan (#44)

You seem to want to digress into the entirety of WW2 in your effort to not explain how it was somehow illegal for Germany to attact France after France declared war on Germany, or to identify WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France, or by what miracle France was to be saved from itself.

It was illegal for Germany to attack France after the French declared war on them.

Because the French declared war on them, along with the British, for committing the illegal act of murdering Poland.

The Germans breached the peace first. That gave everybody the right to pile on them. It did NOT give the Germans the right to defend themselves any more than a criminal has the right to defend himself against the cops.

The Germans became criminals when they invaded Poland.

That they were able to then go murder a bunch of other free countries including France, and bomb England flat before attacking the USSR and FINALLY getting plowed under by everybody was because the United States chose to pretend in the 1930s that what happened in the outside world was none of our affair, and also because the Soviets decided to let the West tear itself apart.

But the world came to get us eventually too, when the bad guys were a lot stronger and could kill a lot more of us. The Germans eventually went after Russia and 25 million died.

The LESSON that everybody learned from this - particularly the Americans and the Russians - was to not let anybody who breaks the peace in Europe get away with it at all. When they START to go rogue, you occupy them and crush it out.

Had the US stood by the Western democracies after Germany invaded Poland, or at least after they overran Denmark and Norway, Tens of millions of lives would have been saved.

That's why we have the United Nations today - to stop that sort of imperial evil from getting started again.

You're focusing on France to try to troll me, but France was just another one of the victims. The aggressors were the Germans. They started the war by invading Poland, once they did that, everybody had the right to attack them, and the duty to do so. Important and unimportant countries shirked their duty, with the net result that they all lost tens or hundreds of thousands or millions dead. You stop the criminals when they start. You don't let them get big and powerful.

Had James Buchanan moved on the South immediately, the Civil War would not have had to go on as long as it did, and Sherman would not have had to burn Georgia to the ground.

But he didn't. He let the rebels get on a head of steam, and then we had to kill a half-million of them to get it over with.

It's never good to let criminals get on a head of steam. You need to nip that sort of thing in the bud early.

France and Britain did the right thing, declaring on Germany. Russia and America did the wrong thing, staying out of it.

We paid dearly for that, the Russians even dearer.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-11   7:58:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Vicomte13, y'all (#45) (Edited)

Now you have digressed to the American Civil War. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France, or by what miracle was France to be saved from itself? ---- nolu chants

Vic, - your discussion with nolu has become ridiculous, chiefly because he/she refuses to acknowledge what you have previously posted in reply. --- This is becoming nolu's signature way of debate, - ignore what an opponent posts and reply, usually with excessively lengthy posts that have little substance.

Whats become really weird is that nolu is apparently not only an anti- constitutional southern sympathizer, but also some sort of an anti-allied axis symp as well.

tpaine  posted on  2017-02-13   22:49:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: tpaine (#48)

He's just stubborn and can't let go. I'm stubborn and won't get go either.

The North-going Zax and the South-going Zax.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-13   23:33:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Vicomte13 (#49)

He's just stubborn and can't let go. I'm stubborn and won't get go either.

It is just that I am willing to go that extra mile to cure you of your confusion. Your best so far is to claim that Russia should have declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland. Of course, Russia was part of their joint invasion of Poland. Russia kept their slice for a very long time.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-14   1:56:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: nolu chan (#51)

t is just that I am willing to go that extra mile to cure you of your confusion. Your best so far is to claim that Russia should have declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland. Of course, Russia was part of their joint invasion of Poland. Russia kept their slice for a very long time.

You failed to take into account the Soviet effort to negotiate with the West FIRST. Their FIRST instinct was to ally with the French against the German invasion of Poland. And they went to the West FIRST. But the British were so anti-Communist that they would not consider any sort of cooperation with Russia in 1939 (they changed their tune later), and the French did not dare go it alone without Britain, because the Germans were too big.

Russia only made a deal with Russia AFTER being spurned by the West. The territory they took in Poland served as a buffer to keep the Germans further away. Stalin's men could read Mein Kampf just like everybody else, and knew what Hitler intended.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-14   8:02:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 53.

#55. To: Vicomte13 (#53)

You failed to take into account the Soviet effort to negotiate with the West FIRST.

You fail to take into account that your actual assertion can be repeated back to you as many times as necessary.

Vicomte13 #47: "France, Britain, Russia and America had the right, and the duty, to declare war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland."

Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939.

That is after the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty.

That's the one that said:

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-14 20:04:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 53.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com