Polish/Canadian Pastor calls out the CCP. “I do not cooperate with the Gestapo. I do not talk to the Nazis. You came in your uniforms like thugs, that’s what you are. Brown shirts of Adolf Hitler. You are Nazi Gestapo. Communist. Fascists”
‘Today Apple announced that they would be allowing Establishment Oligarch-owned Parler back on the Apple App Store. This comes after Parler ousted their pro-free speech CEO and Founder John Matze, who claims that his 40% stake in the company was stolen from him. After removing Matze Parler implemented a “troll filter” to censor “trolling content,” whatever that means.
Bloomberg reported that Parler is working with third-party artificial intelligence software company Hive to automatically censor and remove content that Apple doesn’t like. Hive works with other Big Tech companies like Reddit to leverage artificial intelligence to censor content at scale.
Shortly after this news, conservative firebrand Dan Bongino announced on his show that he is “no longer involved in the day-to-day” of Parler, which left the company at the whims of Billionaire Oligarch Rebekah Mercer.
The same Mercer family behind the atrocious privacy nightmare of Cambridge Analytica. The same people who threw Milo under the bus. The same people who threw Steve Bannon under the bus. The same people who threw Parler Founder and Former CEO John Matze under the bus. The same people who threw President Trump under the bus.
So in essence Parler is now a smaller version of Twitter for Fox News pundits to “echo” each other into oblivion and for the Mercer family to gather data on you.
“Conservatives” are celebrating Parler’s capitulation to Apple and transformation into a de facto Big Tech-controlled social network as a “win.” Big Tech’s arbitrary censorship standards are now being applied across Parler by the same artificial intelligence company that Big Tech platforms use, but you won’t find any “conservative” pundits bringing this fact up.
This is why the right continually gets steamrolled in the culture. Conceding to the Enemy’s demands in order to participate in the Enemy’s app stores is not a win for conservatives or the right in general. It’s a PR win for Apple, who hopes to get Republicans in Congress off their back. The Mercer’s may see this as a win, but The People will not. Not the smart ones who see through the grift and pathetic weakness.
The People want one thing: to speak freely online without permission from some billionaire oligarch–be it the Mercers or Mark Zuckerberg. They certainly don’t want to be policed by AI.
Parler had all the money in the world, all the “influencers” in the world, all the mainstream support from Fox News, members of Congress, and the Conservative Inc Machine. None of it mattered. Getting back on the App Store won’t matter either.
Parler bent the knee and Big Tech has them under their thumb. No amount of shilling by Fox News pundits is going to change that fact. No amount of money spent trying to bring people back to have their speech policed by some robot is going to work.
Gab stands alone in the market as the leader and home of free speech online. Not only was Gab’s app banned from both App Stores, but our entire Developer Account was banned from ever submitting apps to those stores ever again. So be it, we wear that as a badge of honor and it should be a sign to those of you reading this that we are and always have been serious about our mission.
Our mission is a simple one and has remained unchanged for almost five years now: we want everyone on this planet to speak freely on the internet without permission from Establishment Oligarchs.
We refuse to bend the knee to Big Tech and never will.’https://news.gab.com/2021/04/19/parler-bends-the-knee-to-big-tech/
You have to hand it to Xi Jinping. The Chinese “president for life” last September schmoozed the royalty of the United Nations with his unexpected pledge that his country aims “to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality (Net Zero) before 2060.”
Xi then urged other nations “to pursue innovative, coordinated, green and open development for all” through rapid deployment of new technologies so as to “achieve a green recovery of the world economy in the post-COVID era and thus create a powerful force driving sustainable development.”
The eloquent sage, confident that the mantle of world leadership was passing from the United States into his hands, concluded his prepared remarks as follows:
“The baton of history has been passed to our generation, and we must make the right choice, a choice worthy of the people’s trust and of our times. Let us join hands to uphold the values of peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom shared by all of us and build a new type of international relations and a community with a shared future for mankind. Together, we can make the world a better place for everyone.”
And just how is China preparing itself for Net Zero?
The London-based energy and climate research group Ember reports that China generated 53 percent of the world’s total coal-fired power in 2020, a jump of 9 percent from 2015, while adding 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power installations in 2020 alone. China is also financing billions of dollars’ worth of coal-fired power plants in other “developing” nations.
[It should be noted that in 2020 China also added a record 71.7 GW of wind power and 48.2 GW of solar. And China has set a goal of 70 GW of installed nuclear energy by 2025. But “progress is nowhere near fast enough,” according to Ember power analyst Dave Jones. Jones added that “coal power needs to collapse by 80 percent by 2030 to avoid dangerous levels of warming.” Or so he believes.]
Analysis by the Asia Society Policy Institute and Climate Analytics, as reported in Climate Change News, indicates that to reach the Paris Agreement’s goal of 1.5o C temperature reduction by 2060, China would have to achieve peak CO2 emissions by 2025 and rapidly reduce them thereafter, with a total phaseout of coal-fired power by 2040.
Yet, according to the Renewable Energy Institute, the typical coal-fired power plant has a lifespan of about 40 years. Would China throw away massive investments just to kowtow to the UN? Zhang Shuwei, chief economist for the Draworld Environment Research Center, claims Chinese coal may have to absorb over $300 billion in stranded assets if the nation follows through and undertakes a “cliff fall of coal power generation after 2030.”
But, as the New York Post recently editorialized, China’s betrayal of its commitment to Hong Kong, together with its duplicity regarding the COVID pandemic and its dissembling on treatment of the Uighurs, signals that the Middle Kingdom cannot be trusted to keep its word. The trampling of Hong Kong’s freedoms, the paper argues, demonstrates that there is no point negotiating with the Chinese Communist Party on long-term issues like climate change.
Agence France-Presse reported in March that China’s latest five-year plan increases investment in coal and omits any cap on total energy consumption. Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, compares Xi’s words with China’s deeds, stating that, “The central contradiction between expanding the smokestack economy and promoting green growth appears unresolved.”
Similarly, Japanese journalists also question China’s commitment to the Green economy – in contrast to the “excellent” responses of Japan and its Western allies (despite the fact that new Japanese coal plants in 2020 exceeded retirements and that high-efficiency coal plants are unlikely to disappear soon. [The Japanese in their zeal to single out China ignored the fact that India and many other nations are also beefing up coal mining and power generation.]
Other journalists are equally offended at China’s apparent duplicity. Michael Standaert, a China-based free-lancer, wrote in Yale E360, under the headline, “Despite pledges to cut emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree.” Standaert argued that there is a “real and figurative haze about how strong [China’s] climate ambitions really are and how quickly the country can wean itself from … coal.” [When Mother Jones reposted Standaert’s article, the headline read in part, “China Is Bingeing on Coal.”]
Vox correspondent Lili Pike provides a backstory excuse for China’s seemingly odd behavior. She notes that China’s provinces, who gained authority to approve new power plants in 2014, see new coal plants as a way to boost their GDP and provide jobs. The economic slowdowns linked to COVID provided extra incentives for these provincial plants.
Perhaps Vox thinks that, once the provincial economies are rolling along, they will recognize their bad investments and shutter their coal plants almost immediately. Perhaps pigs will fly.
China’s “slouching towards Net Zero” approach belies the panicked warnings of UN
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who insists “the climate emergency” — the defining crisis of our time — is happening even more quickly than we feared. It “is a race we are losing, but it is a race we can win.”
Guterres made a toothless plea to China last July to stop building new coal plants, but he giddily applauded Xi’s rhetoric in September. Xi has also won praise from mega-billionaire Bill Gates, who in a February 2021 interview with China Daily gushed over China’s “determination” to prioritize the climate and its contributions to carbon reduction.
According to Gates, “It’s great that President Xi is making climate a priority and wants to work with other countries on this…. Without the contributions of China, many of the key ingredients (in fighting climate change) like the batteries and solar power wouldn’t be so affordable.” [We’re on the same team, babee!]
In the real world, not every environmental disaster prediction has come true – actually, hardly any of them have. Paul Ehrlich’s best-seller, The Population Bomb, opened with this frightful bit of “news”:
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”
Today, we have the wisdom of apparent REM fan Greta Thunberg: “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change…. Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.” In criticizing China for detaining a young Chinese “climate striker,” Thunberg added, “Billions of people will die, and children will die while parents lose their jobs!”
Stop it, President Xi! You are making her cry!
But perhaps Xi Jinping knows Greta is dead right. Perhaps he knows it is too late to save the planet. So why not just “binge” on coal, keep the peasants happy, and stay in office until the end. Maybe Xi has read the tea leaves, or the astronomical charts, and rightly foresees the second coming of the killer asteroid.
Or maybe he figures that by 2030 the whole world will be under his control.’https://papundits.wordpress.com/2021/04/15/chinas-strange-endorsement-of-net-zero/
Sleepy and most if not all those he appoints to various positions conduct themselves according to the dictates of that one who deceived Eve in the Garden and continues to deceive through various lies of which one is climate change! Sleepy and those working with him loath America and this is vividly seen when ‘In February, Beverly Wright linked the legacy of slavery and the Jim Crow era with energy development. In March, President Joe Biden appointed Wright to his White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
Wright, the founder of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, is joined on the council by Jade Begay of the Indigenous Environmental Network, who co-wrote a 2018 op-ed in EcoWatch contending that climate change is “colonialism” and “cultural genocide.”
Biden has named several activists that tie energy development to racial bigotry to the Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
The appointments came just as the Biden administration was purging several scientists appointed by President Donald Trump from two Environmental Protection Agency panels, the Science Advisory Board, and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
“We know that we cannot achieve health justice, economic justice, racial justice, or educational justice without environmental justice,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in a statement announcing the advisory council, adding:
That is why President Biden and I are committed to addressing environmental injustice. This historic White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council will ensure that our administration’s work is informed by the insights, expertise, and lived experience of environmental justice leaders from across the nation.
The White House did not immediately respond to an inquiry from The Daily Signal on Friday.
Biden has been aggressive on environmental issues since taking office in January.
The Biden administration’s budget proposal includes $1.4 billion on “environmental justice” initiatives.
“The [fiscal year] 2022 discretionary request for EPA makes historic investments to tackle the climate crisis and to make sure that all communities, regardless of their [ZIP] code, have clean air, clean water, and safe places to live and work,” EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said Friday in a statement.
The council has 26 members representing six regions across the country as well as Puerto Rico, plus officials from the EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Biden also appointed Susana Almanza, founder of the Austin, Texas-based People Organized in Defense of Earth and Her Resources, to the council.
A mostly favorable 2019 article in Hilltop Views, the student newspaper of St. Edward’s University in Austin, noted that Almanza’s office had a poster on the wall of Che Guevara, a murderous military commander in Fidel Castro’s Cuban communist regime.
The article quoted Almanza saying of energy companies, “we are fighting big monsters; they’re not little ones.” She added that zoning of polluting chemical plants “look[ed] at people of color as indispensable [sic] … like ‘it’s OK if we pollute them and if they die or if they get cancer.’”
Biden also named Tom Cormons, of Appalachian Voices—an environmental group operating in Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee—to the council. Cormons wrote in 2012 that fossil fuels pose the greatest threat to the next generation when commenting on a project by Dominion Virginia Power.
“Dominion plans to continue locking us into dependence on the fossil fuels that are one of the greatest threats to our children’s future,” Cormons wrote in a piece published by C-Ville, the website of a magazine covering Charlottesville, Virginia.
Seven members of Biden’s environmental justice council, including Wright, were signatories to a July 2019 Equitable and Just National Climate Platform, which was a partnership between the National Resources Defense Council and the Center for American Progress, both advocacy groups on the left.
The others members of the White House council that were signatories to the 2019 project were Robert Bullard of the East Michigan Environmental Action Council; Richard Moore of the Los Jardines Institute; Harold Mitchell of ReGenesis; Michele Roberts of the Environmental Justice Health Alliance; Nicky Sheats of both the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance and the Center for the Urban Environment of the John S. Watson Institute for Public Policy at Thomas Edison State University; and Peggy Shepard of WE ACT for Environmental Justice.
The Center for American Progress and National Resources Defense Council environmental justice platform states:
For too long, systemic racism and injustice has left economically disadvantaged communities, tribal communities, and communities of color exposed to the highest levels of toxic pollution from the burning of fossil fuels.
These vulnerable communities are increasingly affected by climate change, and they also have the fewest resources to prepare for and recover from its harm and hazard.
The platform also asserts: “Unless justice and equity are central aspects of our climate agenda, the inequality of the carbon-based economy will be replicated as we build a new clean and renewable energy economy.”
In February, Vox reported on Wright’s conflating racial discrimination and energy development.
“People often forget the legacies of slavery, of Jim Crow segregation, and out of that chain, laws that were deeply entrenched within the social structure of the Southern environment that worsened our quality of life,” she told Vox.
“That legacy resulted in communities that had been inundated with toxic facilities, impacting our health, the value of the homes where people live, causing them to have higher cancer rates, and to eventually be relocated from within the midst of these facilities,” Wright said.
Days before her March 29 appointment to the White House council, Wright gave testimony at a Department of Interior forum, asserting racism is “central” to fossil fuel operations, saying that she hopes Interior Secretary Deb Haaland takes action.
“I urge Secretary Haaland to undertake an environmental justice review of the federal oil and gas program in order to address the racial discrimination that is central to oil and gas operations,” Wright said.
Begay’s 2018 op-ed, written with Ayse Gursoz of the Rainforest Action Network, asserted a racial element of pollution.
“It’s essential to note that Indigenous vulnerability and resilience to climate change cannot be detached from the context of colonialism, which created both the economic conditions for climate change and the social conditions that continue to limit the capacity for Indigenous resistance and resilience,” the EcoWatch piece said.
Both historically and in the present, climate change itself is thoroughly tied to colonial practices. Greenhouse-gas production over the last two centuries hinged on the dispossession of Indigenous lands and resources.
In an interview with gal-dem.com, a media outlet that describes itself as a publication telling stories of people of color and “marginalized genders,” Begay said, “We are the ones who know how to maintain ecological balance and the most important action needed now is to stop all new fossil fuel development.”’https://papundits.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/biden-environmental-justice-appointees-equate-energy-production-fossil-fuels-with-racism/
Follow the science say those in authority, but whose science? Wear a mask and then don’t wear a mask! This stuff is scary!
‘Quoting from the results of a study carried out in 1963 by Stanley Milgram, Chuck Colson predicted the kind of C0V1D-19 lockdown authoritarianism that was birthed by Communist Chinese authorities and copycatted all around the world.
The Milgram ‘shock experiment’ was a study into “the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.”
Milgram’s aim was to see how “easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII.”
He designed the study to answer questions raised by the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, and the defence’s justification that those on trial “were only following orders.” [i]
In 1974, Milgram himself wrote:
“I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist.
“Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.”
Colson explained that up to 80% of those who participated in Milgram’s experiment were willing to “inflict painful electric shocks on another person if an authority figure told them to do so.” [ii]
In 2007, Santa Clara University’s, Jerry Burger ‘replicated the experiment, and Burger’s results were nearly identical with Milgram.’
This prompted New York Times’ Adam Cohen to conclude that “ordinary Americans are about as willing to blindly follow orders to inflict pain on an innocent stranger as they were four decades ago.”
Colson, not surprised by the results said, “the two experiments are a huge cautionary tale of how people respond to authority.”
The studies, he said, show that “nothing changes about human nature; we really do blindly follow authority, and very few people challenge it.”
Colson wrote, “when there’s social chaos, people will choose order over liberty. It’s the reason why, if you give a prison guard or a government clerk a little power, they become abusive.”
The “only real barrier preventing people from inflicting pain is conscience,” which Colson explains is our God-given “internal moral bearings” (see Romans 2:15) that have to be nurtured into maturity.
The problem and its cause are, as the Milgram/Burger studies infer, a lack of Godly nurturing, which is the consequence of “the breakdown of the family and moral decay in American life.”
The abdication from nurturing our God-given internal moral bearings blinds us to tyranny and binds us to sinful participation in it.
People will obey a lawful authority without question because there’s no acknowledgement of God; no other authority or power higher than Government fiats and stuffy, bloated Bureaucratic rules.
This is God vs. Government-become-god territory.
Where unjust laws are obeyed because, as Colson argued, “people have lost the concept of a law beyond the law.”
Which, says Colson, leads to a rejection of civil liberties, because “given a choice between order and chaos, Americans will always choose order – even if it shuts down some of our freedoms.”
The act of civil disobedience, he said, also becomes a farce, because “in a morally relativistic era, there’s nothing that kicks in and tells us that something is wrong.”
A docile, conditioned polis simply can’t know what they’re protesting, or find reasons to justify why.
It was a dismal prediction. Now a C0V1D-19 reality.
Atheist, secular humanist Governments following their Communist Chinese counterparts turned neighbour against neighbour. The police were weaponised against the people they’re paid to protect, and fighting the virus became about denouncing people perceived to be lockdown “lawbreakers.”
The highest civic duty was the surrender of civil liberties, wearing a mask, not questioning the mandated medical advice from bureaucrats, applauding their disaster porn, and staying glued to the media’s daily “briefings.”
As Milgram, commenting on the outcome of his experiment noted: “The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”
To paraphrase Colson, the only sure-fire way to protect civil liberties, and live out just civil disobedience, is by ‘courageously asserting the law beyond the law’; disobeying unjust laws that are contrary to our internal moral bearings, informed as they are, by the self-revealing God of Grace, and His objective moral law.
Though it may seem like we are being “plunged into the abyss of hell,” Charles Spurgeon once said, “God does not leave us there alone.”
The “star of hope is still in the sky when the night is blackest. Surely out of death, darkness, and despair, we shall yet arise to Life, light and liberty.”’https://caldronpool.com/follow-the-science-obedience-to-authority-vs-personal-conscience/
[i] McLeod, S. 2017. The Milgram Shock Experiment, Simply Psychology
[ii] Colson, C. 2015. My Final Word, Zondervan (pp.58-59)
[iii] Spurgeon, C. Not Left to Perish, Faith’s Checkbook March 3rd
So much for free speech!!!
‘A professor at the University of San Diego School of Law is under investigation by administrators for a personal blog post that used colorful language in reference to Chinese government propaganda.
“If you believe that the coronavirus did not escape from the lab in Wuhan, you have to at least consider that you are an idiot who is swallowing whole a lot of Chinese cock swaddle,” wrote Professor Thomas Smith on March 10 on his blog the Right Coast.
Students took notice and complained, and Smith appended an update.
“It appears that some people are interpreting my reference to ‘Chinese cock swaddle,’ as a reference to an ethnic group. That is a misinterpretation. To be clear, I was referring to the Chinese government,” Smith added to the post.
Despite Smith’s clarification, as well as the fact that he wrote it on his personal blog and not in an official capacity as a law professor, he remains under investigation.’https://www.thecollegefix.com/usd-law-professor-under-investigation-for-personal-blog-post-critical-of-chinese-government/
‘USD officials said they do not condone racist language and the incident is under review. The Asian Pacific American Law Student Association released a list of several demands, CBS 8 reported. In addition to Smith’s firing, they included giving students the right to opt out of his class and a reporting system “for students to access when there is offensive conduct by faculty or staff at USD.”’https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/03/22/u-san-diego-professor-investigated-anti-china-blog-post
How many freedoms must we surrender for the supposed health and safety of the public? Have the governments in the West gone completely crazy or are they just reading the rules from the CCP lawless book? This video is from Melbourne, Australia where dictator Dan Andrews will probably be re-elected in two years because those who do not cherish the freedoms we had before the China virus will vote him and his communist party back into office! What does CHINA have waiting for us this year?
Dr. Boys sure knows how to STIR the pot!
‘Daegan Miller’s This Radical Land is said to be “an outstanding literary achievement”; however, that can’t be true since it is based upon a whopper. The reader is told, “we are reminded of the true origin story of the American landscape: we all live on land stolen from Native people.”
Afraid not. That is fake history to make snowflakes feel good.
Another writer referred to white men who “took over their [Indian] world,” but where did he get the idea that this world (America) belonged to the Indians? There is an abundance of evidence that today’s Indians replaced another group altogether. How far back must we go to be highly principled—doing the right thing?
However, let’s assume the commonly held belief that the Indians were the original occupiers and “owners” of the land until we choose, at another time, to get into the almost unknown, undesirable, and unpleasant details of prior ownership.
Merely living on the land does not confirm ownership. This issue is the most important factor in the discussion. Riding on horseback across land does not confer or confirm ownership. The land is “owned” when occupied by families in homes and is controlled, defended, tilled, and fenced.
After expulsion from the Garden, God told Adam and Eve that in the future, they and all ancestors would have to live by the sweat of their brow. God was saying, Adam, this is your new home, and as punishment, you will live by the sweat of your brow to produce food to keep your family alive. You will have to fight the bugs, beetles, briers, and brambles until you return to the ground from which you were taken.
Englishman John Locke lived in the 17th century and agreed with God. Locke is known as the “Father of Liberalism,” who greatly influenced the French and American Revolutionary leaders. He argued in the late 1600s in his Second Treatise of Government that God gave the earth for man’s common good, but land can only be “owned” when a man’s labor, which obviously belongs only to him, is mixed with the land to improve it. That would be removing stones, swamps, trees, and other obstacles. It would involve building a home or other structures on it. The land would be his when he tills the ground, plants seed, and brings in a harvest.
Locke taught that each person has property in his own person—that is, each person literally owns his own body. With that body, he can acquire or own property by using his body to improve the land. That means a man purchases land not with silver but with the sweat of his brow.
With that accomplished, the land is his. He has put himself into the land. He has removed it from common property and made it his by working it with his own hands.
Locke lived when the king claimed a divine right to rule everything and everyone, and the king owned everything. The land was held by tenants who used the land and served in the king’s army when needed. The tenants had sub-tenants who actually worked the land, but the king owned everything.
After 1492, Spain and Portugal started making outrageous ownership claims throughout the Western Hemisphere. They claimed vast territory that they had not seen and had no plans on settling. Pope Alexander VI stepped into the morass, hoping to untangle the knots by dividing the hemisphere between Spain and Portugal. Of course, Alex had no authority to deal with international and national land claims. Unless a nation built a substantial permanent settlement on the land they claimed and were willing and able to defend it, a claim meant little to nothing.
On the North American continent, the various Indian tribes made the same bogus claim as European kings about owning the land.
The same principle of land ownership applicable to our world would also apply to the Moon or Mars. Who can claim ownership of either? The first nation that landed on the Moon was America, followed by Russia and Japan; however, landing there could not justify ownership. However incredible it was, only a fool would suggest that success could qualify as ownership.
If a nation lands on the Moon, it must explore the land, erect buildings, build streets, water systems, power stations, and produce breathable oxygen from the soil and rocks since there is no breathable atmosphere. Oxygen on the Moon is abundant, but it is very difficult to become usable to men. There is more than 40 percent oxygen on the Moon’s mass, but the soil and rocks must be heated, thereby forcing oxygen to emerge so it can be useful to humans. Various scientific entities are looking at different ways for extracting oxygen from Moon rock, so researchers are examining potentially cheaper ways to produce oxygen on the Moon.
NASA scientists have many ideas about how to extract it. Simply heating lunar soil to a very high temperature causes gaseous oxygen to emerge. Or, they can collect the rocks and “either treat it with chemicals or blast it with heat, and you can free up unlimited quantities of oxygen both for breathing and for rocket fuel.”
The first nation to make the Moon livable can claim “ownership” to that portion of it.
The Indian tribes who fought for “ownership” of the land could not legitimately claim ownership only because they rode across the land on horseback or claimed to have been the first men to occupy the land. Furthermore, they believed if any land was not used or occupied for a year or more, anyone could claim it. War between Indian tribes was almost constant because they believed that the stronger tribe had a natural right to subdue the weaker ones. Fighting was a way of life for Indians. They kept resisting the Whites because to admit Whites were stronger was to admit the white man’s right to occupy the land the Indians had traditionally used.
Unquestionably, the Indian/White conflict about land is a mixed bag. There was a clash of cultures and disagreements as to right and wrong. Moreover, there were many failures and massacres on both sides, with numerous treaties made and broken by each group. Fools and bigots claim that it was the Indians’ fault, while others declare it all the fault of Whites.
According to Indian law, the white men owned the land because they were stronger and could hold it by force. Of course, white men were not bound by Indian law, but they are bound by discovering (or claiming) land, removing the stones, trees, and debris, building homes, barns, and corrals, farming and fencing it.
Early Americans “bought” the land by their own sweat. They didn’t steal it from anyone.’http://donboys.cstnews.com/native-american-indians-did-not-own-land-because-they-rode-across-it-on-horseback
This video speaks concerning ‘Pelosi’s proposition to end the Republic through a ‘Red Reformation’ which would eliminate the electoral college, constitutionalize unverifiable voting, and disqualify “unpatriotic” Americans who refuse to submit to the Communist China way. We also exclusively share James Clapper’s plan to empower spooks to spy on Americans and secure our politics from Christians deemed to be domestic terrorists. Rick Wiles, Doc Burkhart, Edward Szall. Airdate 02/23/2021.’