Back in the old days growing up in the city there were Italian neighborhoods, Polish, black, etc. A lot of folks sraight off the boat, including my grandparents, three out of four. The neighborhood grocery stores, the bakeries and resturants, food stands, the food was excellant and varied. The people worked at being an American. Now the old timers died and it lost a lot. The type of people now are conquerors and want to change us, not going to have it. I left city life back in '77 and never looked back

Looks like a bunch of proud boys on here.
What the heck is Paul letting this go on for ??

Every western country is facing the same problem,,,,

The road to socialism is paved by bringing in more dependents

Hate to tell you this but all western countries have embraced socialism. Find me a party that is going to win the support of voters that is going to roll back socialism. This battle is lost, because the natives love socialism.

Ok, I am going to try to give this a shot.
Multiculturalism has changed over time. As this country was established by Western Europeans, Christians, we allowed the same to legally migrate to America. As land amounts expanded the country needed people and encouraged immigration from the same background of which they came. We brought needed and cheap labor from China, Ireland, etc. That changed in the 60's or 70's as a country we decided to expand our immigration options as to where people came from.
The early settlers that came here wanted to be Americans, today's immigrants want to change America and identify as the country from which they came. Waving flags of their country and not an American flag, playing the black national anthem??? The media and others do play a roll in their liberal views which makes anything ok to do and portray. I have always said artists, actors, writers, see the world differently than many of us. I attribute this to the creative minds they have that see everything different than we may.
The United States was founded on Christian teachings and laws, but the founders clearly stated we cannot establish a religion for the county. Only allowing Christian teachings entry would in essence allow that. The question in my mind asks what is a Chirstian anymore? My wifes family church has become the ELCA (Evangelical Lurtheran Church in America). This church flys the rainbow flag, teaches we live on occupied lands, and when I once asked the pastor where they stand on mutliple issues I was told that is up to the individual to decide. Not my cup of tea.
As per those talking education I taught for 30 years Social Sciences, I tried to teach a balanced perspective though playing the devils advocate from the liberal perspective was nauseating for me (especially animal rights). My question then and continues to be what happened to parent involvment. What happened to Parent oversight, of children, schools and government. Schools are not the moral compass of kids, Parents are. And sorry but, if what your children are taught at home can't stand up to the 45 minutes you spend in my class that is truly sad. Parents should be teaching morals not teachers. I know and hope when students went home they asked you and rather than getting mad at me that your child is asking and thinking and getting ready for society you had a discssion that reinforced your morals.
So many today are quitters, they run and hide they do not get involved, run for office, attend meetings, write letters, etc. I have a son this way and it pisses me off! I did not raise a quitter and a cowrad to stand up for what he beleives.
Ok Im done have at it. Have a great day I have a trap line to check. Tight Chains!

We are to turn the other cheek and accept it , let all the trash in no matter what.

Afraid I disagree with your statement, this has been a very civil discourse with people expressing their beliefs. Now if it became what some have where they attack fine. But civil discourse it what we need in this country. My opinion may hurt your feelings but that's OK. That's part of this country. We had loyalists to the frown that disagreed with the patriots as well.

So this begs the question.......what is "our" (American) culture, that is being destroyed by having many other cultures?

Is it the way humans have lived for almost the entirety of our existence, as small hunter gatherer bands?

Is it late 1700s Thomas Jefferson-style noble landowning farmers?

Mid 1800s slave owning plantation lifestyle?

1950s norman rockwell boomer culture?

Modern MAGA "conservatism"?




And further .....what's the solution?

Can we vote out way out?
Kill everyone who doesn't belong to "our" culture"?
Return to a primitive lifestyle like kaczinski wanted so we can each live only with "our" people?
Deport anyone who doesn't live like us?
Imprison anyone who doesn't fit?

Start with flushing out all illegals

2nd would be deportation of all Muslims

3rd take back all private land owned by foreign countries

4th ban mail in ballots

5th put all freaks in institutions

6th end all forms of wefare

7th..........

8th.........

9th ..........

Great man.

this is great!!!

carry on y'all happy tuesday

thats all i got.

Life and liberty for all is a Christian principle.

You left out your favorite.......Modern Liberalism.

By the way, it seems the liberals are the ones killing or trying to kill those who disagree with the liberal culture.

They didn't assimilate because the means to forcibly assimilate was taken away. There for a reason for the way things were and the african american community was becoming assimilated. Booker T Washington didn't get invited to dinner at the White House by Teddy Roosevelt for being black. Black wall street didn't occur because of systemic racism. George Washington Carver didn't happen because of government grants and subsidies. Things were hard for a reason.

My first thought is when we first became a country, but then I thought maybe after the civil war, or right after the next civil war, your choice. What are your thoughts?

So Savell....still got your job?

Well......like I said at the very beginning, people that aren't alike don't tend to get along. And, unfortunately, some people are retarded and think that there's only two ways to think about things. For example......I hunt, fish, and trap, own guns, hate democrats, liberals, and commies, been married to the same woman since I was 19, have 5 kids that I homeschool, and love America, but I don't vote Republican. So those retards that I mentioned hear that, and their two braincells get overloaded and the start convulsing and screaming "TDS!" "Liberal!" Etc. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. (And actually it is funny, but it's not nice to make fun of retards).

The point is, we can't just split into two groups. A civil war might work, but there's gonna be a lot more than two sides. It's not gonna be a bunch of MAGA goons on one side and blue haired limp twisted types on the other side. The real solution, as I see it, is a return to small, mostly disconnected communities or like-minded folks. You can live with your people, I can live with my people, other people can live with their own like-minded folks, and we can all leave each other alone. Will that work in a modern industrial world? Well, probably not, unfortunately.

This is why the founders were okay with seperate states federated into a single union rather than one nation. The whole one nation under bullcrap is a post Lincoln fiction and it's imposition is rapidly failing, mainly because we've lost the God part.

You do you out there on the left coast.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Fbyk5ofjz/

THE ORIGINAL EXIT CLAUSE:
Why America’s Founding Did Not Rule Out Secession—It Baked It In

In the summer of 1788 and the years that followed, four proud American States did something that every modern textbook, every civics class, and nearly every Supreme Court opinion since 1869 has quietly agreed to forget:
They Ratified the United States Constitution with an unmistakable, unambiguous escape clause, legally binding, written into the very act of ratification itself.

Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island did not simply “join” the new Union. They signed on with a loaded proviso: the moment the federal government perverted the powers delegated to it—turned tyrant, overreached, or trampled their liberties—they explicitly reserved the right to take those powers back. Not through “elections,” not through “amendments,” not through polite petitions, but by resumption: the Sovereign Act of Reclaiming what had only been loaned to their Deputized Agent called the United States, but never surrendered.

These were not vague rhetorical flourishes. They were formal, solemn declarations adopted by duly elected conventions speaking in the name of “We the People” of each State. They were printed, published, and sent to Congress alongside the instruments of ratification. And they used language so blunt that any honest reader in 1788 understood exactly what it meant: the Constitution was a Revocable Compact, a Treaty, not an unbreakable merger. Breach its terms, oppress the States or the People, and the grantors retained the legal and moral right to walk away with everything they had delegated—and more.

For seventy years those clauses sat in plain sight, quoted by Jefferson and Madison in 1798, brandished by New England during the War of 1812, invoked by South Carolina in 1832, and finally acted upon in 1860–61. Then, after Appomattox, they were buried—first by force of arms, then by force of narrative. The Union became oddly “indissoluble,” the Constitution “perpetual,” and the idea that four of the most influential ratifying conventions had insisted on an exit ramp was quietly memory-holed.

This is the story of the four escape hatches built into the foundation of the American Republic—the Clauses that prove the Constitution was born not as a suicide pact, but as a conditional trust, revocable the moment that trust was betrayed.
Ignore them at your peril. They have never been repealed.

Virginia Ratifying Convention (June 2–27, 1788, Richmond)

The Virginia Ratifying Convention was one of the most contentious and thoroughly documented of the state conventions, featuring prominent figures such as James Madison and Edmund Pendleton (Federalists) versus Patrick Henry, George Mason, and William Grayson (Anti-Federalists). The convention ultimately ratified the Constitution on June 26, 1788, by a vote of 89–79, but only after incorporating a declaration asserting the people’s right to resume delegated powers if abused. This “resumption clause” was a compromise to appease Anti-Federalists who feared consolidation and loss of state sovereignty. It appeared in the formal instrument of ratification as a declarative statement, not a condition making ratification contingent (Virginia rejected conditional ratification proposals).
Specific Resumption Clause in Virginia’s Ratification (June 26, 1788):

"We the Delegates of the People of Virginia… Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will…"

This language emphasizes that powers are derived from “the People of the United States” (collectively), but resumption is framed as a remedy if the federal government perverts those powers “to their injury or oppression.” It reflects compact theory: the Constitution as a delegating instrument revocable upon breach.

Key Quotes from the Convention Debates on Resumption of Sovereignty:

Patrick Henry, the leading Anti-Federalist, repeatedly invoked the idea of resuming sovereignty or resisting federal overreach, viewing the Constitution as a potential threat to state and individual liberty. He was deeply skeptical of peaceful resumption mechanisms.

On June 5, 1788, responding to Edmund Pendleton’s suggestion that abuses could be checked by convening to recall powers:

"The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves are gone… Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?"

Henry argued that once military power was centralized, peaceful resumption would be impossible, implying a right (or necessity) of forceful reclamation of Sovereignty.

Henry further tied this to absolute Sovereignty on multiple occasions, warning that ratification without prior amendments would surrender Virginia’s ability to resume powers effectively: “If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute!"

George Mason echoed this, arguing the union was a compact among sovereign states and that violation would justify resumption. The clause was partly his influence, as he insisted on explicit reservations of sovereignty.

James Madison and Federalists opposed framing ratification conditionally but accepted the declarative Clause, viewing it as restating the right of revolution (from the Declaration of Independence) a State right of Secession.

In the Virginia Ratifying Convention, none other than James Madison conceded the Right of Secession:

“If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defense.... A Rightful Secession, requires the consent of others, or an Abuse of the Compact, absolving the Seceding Party from all obligations imposed by it.”
—James Madison

The clause later influenced the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (authored by Madison), which asserted states’ rights to interpose against unconstitutional acts, and precursors to nullification/secession ideas.

New York Ratifying Convention (June 17–July 26, 1788, Poughkeepsie)

New York’s convention was dominated initially by Anti-Federalists under Governor George Clinton, with Federalists (led by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Robert Livingston) in the minority. News of Virginia’s ratification helped sway votes, leading to a narrow 30–27 ratification on July 26, 1788. Ratification was “in full confidence” that amendments would be adopted (not strictly conditional), accompanied by a lengthy declaration of rights and principles, including a clear resumption clause. Anti-Federalists like Melancton Smith pushed for strong assertions of State Sovereignty, fearing the Constitution would absorb State powers.

Specific Resumption Clause in New York’s Ratification (July 26, 1788):
"That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security… That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same…"

This clause explicitly ties resumption to “the People” (therefore the States directly) when “necessary to their Happiness,” blending the right of revolution with reserved state powers. It also reserves undelegated powers to “the People of the several States.”

Key Quotes from Convention Debates on Resumption of Sovereignty:
Debates focused on whether states could secede or resume powers if the federal government usurped authority.

Melancton Smith (Anti-Federalist) argued for explicit reservations, warning that without them, States would lose Sovereignty: the clause was a direct response to such concerns.

Alexander Hamilton countered that true Sovereignty lay with the People nationally, but accepted the clause: “The States can never lose their powers, till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties.” He viewed resumption as theoretical (right of revolution), not practical Secession.

The New York clause became a model for Rhode Island’s and influenced the circular letter calling for a second convention (amendments, leading to the Bill of Rights).

Rhode Island Ratifying Convention (May 1790, Newport)

Rhode Island was the last State to ratify, doing so on May 29, 1790, by a razor-thin 34–32 vote after repeated delays, town meetings, and federal pressure (including threats of trade sanctions).

The State had boycotted the Philadelphia Convention and initially rejected the Constitution in a popular referendum. The 1790 convention was brief and tense, with Federalists narrowly prevailing. Ratification included a declaration of 18 rights (mirroring New York’s closely) and proposed amendments, explicitly asserting Resumption as a check on federal overreach.

Specific Resumption Clause in Rhode Island’s Ratification (May 29, 1790):

In the Declaration of Rights:
3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same…"

This nearly verbatim copies New York’s clause, framing Resumption as a popular right when “necessary to their happiness,” while reserving undelegated powers to States.

Key Quotes and Context from the Convention:

Recorded debates are sparse compared to Virginia’s or New York’s, but the convention echoed Anti-Federalist themes of state sovereignty. Supporters of the clause viewed it as preserving absolute State Independence in a Compact.

One delegate reportedly argued during deliberations that without such protections, Rhode Island would be “swallowed up” in consolidation. The narrow vote reflected deep divisions, with towns like Providence favoring ratification only after economic coercion.

These Resumption Clauses in New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island represented Anti-Federalist victories in asserting Compact Theory: the Constitution as a revocable delegation from Sovereign States/People. They implied that violation of terms justified reclaiming “absolute Sovereignty,” laying intellectual groundwork for later doctrines like nullification (Kentucky/Virginia Resolutions) and Secession (1860–61).

Federalists like Madison later downplayed them as mere restatements of revolutionary rights, not implying unilateral State action, but Madison found it difficult to escape his earlier words on Secession.

No other States included such explicit language in their ratifications, though North Carolina’s (1789) was similar.
North Carolina Ratifying Convention and Its Resumption Clause
North Carolina held two ratifying conventions:

First Convention: Hillsborough, July 21 – August 4, 1788
This convention refused to ratify the Constitution outright. Instead, it adopted a Declaration of Rights (26 articles) and a long list of proposed amendments, and adjourned without ratification. The key Sovereignty/Resumption language was contained in that Declaration of Rights.

Second Convention: Fayetteville, November 16 – 23, 1789
After the new federal government was already operating and the Bill of Rights had been sent to the states, North Carolina finally ratified the Constitution by a vote of 194–77. The instrument of ratification was simple and contained no separate Resumption Clauses, but the State explicitly reaffirmed and incorporated the 1788 Hillsborough Declaration of Rights as part of its understanding of the Constitution.

Thus, the famous North Carolina “Resumption Clauses” comes from the Hillsborough Convention of 1788, not the 1789 ratification itself.

Exact Text of the North Carolina Resumption Clause
(Hillsborough Convention, August 1, 1788 – adopted as the 1st and 20th articles of the Declaration of Rights)

1st. "That there are certain natural rights, of which men when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

20th. That the People have a Right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the Legislature for redress of grievances. That the Sovereignty of the several States respectively is not surrendered or given up by the Constitution, but that all powers not expressly delegated by the said Constitution to the United States, or expressly prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People thereof; and that whenever the powers so delegated shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, the people have a right to resume the same."

(The last clause in the 20th article – beginning “and that whenever the powers so delegated shall be perverted…” – is the explicit Resumption Clauses.)
Sometimes it is quoted in slightly varying forms in 19th-century sources, but the official journal of the Hillsborough Convention prints it exactly as above.

Key Quotes from the Hillsborough Convention Debates on Resumption of Sovereignty

Samuel Spencer (moderate Anti-Federalist, later a judge):
“The Sovereignty of the States is not given away; it is only delegated… If Congress should make laws inconsistent with the Constitution, or oppressive to the people, the States have a Right to Resume the powers delegated.”

James Iredell (leading Federalist, future U.S. Supreme Court justice) tried to downplay the clause:

“The idea of resumption of delegated powers is nothing more than the right of revolution which every People must possess… It is not a right peculiar to States as States, but belongs to the People.”

William R. Davie (Federalist delegate who had been at Philadelphia):

“The gentleman talks of resuming powers. What powers? Those only which are delegated. The States retain all others… But to talk of resuming them by a single State is absurd; it must be the People of the United States collectively.”

David Caldwell (Anti-Federalist Presbyterian minister):

“If this government becomes oppressive, the People of North Carolina will not sit still and be slaves… The Clause declaring that we may Resume the Powers delegated when perverted to our injury is essential, for without it we would have no security.”

The Hillsborough Declaration (including the resumption clause) was printed and widely circulated in 1788–1789. When North Carolina finally ratified in November 1789, the Fayetteville Convention did not repeal or retract the 1788
Declaration; it simply declared that “having maturely considered the amendments proposed by Congress [the Bill of Rights], we do ratify the said Constitution.” This silence was interpreted by many North Carolinians (especially Jeffersonian Republicans) as leaving the 1788 reservations, including the Resumption Clause, fully in force.

Summary Comparison of the Four Strongest Resumption Clauses
State

Exact Resumption Language (key phrase)

Ratification Vote & Date
Virginia
“…may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression…”
89–79 (Jun 26, 1788)

New York
“That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness”
30–27 (Jul 26, 1788)

Rhode Island
“That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness”
34–32 (May 29, 1790)

North Carolina (1788)
“…whenever the powers so delegated shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, the people have a right to resume the same”
Refused 1788; ratified 194–77 (Nov 21, 1789)

These four States – Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, and North Carolina (in its 1788 declaration) – are the only ones that explicitly asserted a Right of Resumption of delegated powers in their formal ratification instruments or accompanying declarations. They became central citations in the Nullification and Secession debates of the 19th century.

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
C.M.McAteer
April 10, 2002

…. Yessir lol