A Look at a Proponent of the Lincoln Constitution

A Look at a Proponent of the Lincoln Constitution

Thomas Allen

A proponent of the modern US Constitution that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court gave the United States claims that it is superior to the one that the founding fathers gave the country. To support his claim, he cites several Supreme Court rulings: Baker v. Carr, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

An explanation of each of the aforementioned Supreme Court rulings follow:

– Baker v. Carr: This ruling gave federal courts absolute power over drawing legislative and Congressional districts. This ruling led to establishing electoral districts of equal population on the principle of one person, one vote for State legislatures and congressional districts. Thus, States had to draw districts that shifted representation from rural areas to urban areas. Consequently, rural areas, which are typically more conservative than urban areas, lost political power. Moreover, at the time of this ruling, more Blacks lived in rural areas than in urban areas in the South. Thus, shifting representation from rural to urban areas resulted in under-representing Blacks. To overcome this problem a covert quota system was imposed on the Southern States. To ensure Black representation (overrepresentation) and to guarantee the election of Black candidates, Blacks and Negrophiles are concentrated in the districts that guarantee that Black candidates are elected. However, the States are forced to draw district boundaries so that such an outcome is not obvious.

– Roe v. Wade: This ruling legalized abortion. As a result, a large number of Black babies have been murdered. As a weapon to genocide Blacks, this ruling has been highly effective. Without abortion, the Black population would be much higher than it is.

– Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka: This ruling outlawed school segregation and led to the integration of Blacks into White society. Consequently, Blacks have been integrated and amalgamated with Whites. Integration is amalgamating Blacks with Whites, and, thus, it is leading to the genocide of Blacks. Consequently, this ruling has been a leading cause of the genocide of the American Negro.

– Lawrence v. Texas: This ruling legalizes homosexual activity. Thus, homosexual activity among Blacks was encouraged and increased. With Black men having sex with other men and Black women having sex with other women, the opportunity to reproduce is greatly reduced. Again, another ruling leading to the genocide of Blacks.

– Obergefell v. Hodges: This ruling legalized same-sex marriages. It leads to the genocide of Blacks in the same way that Lawrence v. Texas does.

Amazingly, this proponent omitted Loving v. Virginia. This ruling legalized interracial marriages. More than any other ruling of the Supreme Court, this ruling has resulted in genociding Blacks as interracial marriages have exploded over the years since this ruling. Thus, because of this ruling, Blacks are being bred out of existence, which is genocide. 

Although most of these rulings are hostile to White supremacy, they also promote the genocide of Blacks. Thus, they are far more harmful to the American Negro, the American Black, than is White supremacy. At least White supremacy promotes policies that preserve the Black race while these rulings lead to policies that genocide Blacks.

According to this proponent, these rulings have undone many of the racist rulings and laws of the past. For him, White supremacy is highly destructive of liberty. Also, for him, liberty is civil rights. Based on the Supreme Court rulings that he cites, he is a homophile and an albusphobe (and subconsciously a Negrophobe).

This proponent believes that White supremacists control the country and that the 1619 Project is the true history of the United States. (At least, he is partially correct. The founding fathers did establish the United States under the Constitution of 1787 as a White man’s country. [See “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.]) Further, he believes everything that the establishment and ruling elite indoctrinate about race and is an adherent of Critical Race Theory.

Being a proponent of the Lincoln constitution, he must also approve the dysgenic results of the Lincoln constitution. The Lincoln constitution has brought the welfare state, which has led to the degeneration of Blacks. The welfare state encourages the reproduction of low-quality people and discourages the reproduction of high-quality people. Thus, Blacks with lower IQ and character — low-quality Blacks — are paid to reproduce. Moreover, high-quality Blacks, Blacks with higher IQ and character, are more likely to marry outside their race — thus, leading to the genocide of higher quality Blacks.

Furthermore, this proponent of the Lincoln constitution believes that the races of man are fictions, i.e., a social construct; therefore, the races do not exist. Yet, he denies the logic of his belief because he believes that White supremacy and racism are the country’s biggest problems. Logically, if the races do not exist, then White supremacy and racism cannot exist. If the races do not exist, then no one can be superior to or discriminate against a nonexistent race. Consequently, civil rights laws and court rulings on racial integration are unnecessary and are an irrational intrusion on the rights of the people in the name of a fiction. It would be better for Congress and the courts to confess the truth that races do not exist and, therefore, racial supremacy, racial discrimination, and racism do not and cannot exist. Thus, all civil rights issues are resolved.

As shown above, the constitution that Lincoln gave the country is not only detrimental to liberty, it also genocides the American Negro. Moreover, it creates irrational and illogical people like this proponent of the Lincoln constitution.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

Thomas Allen

White supremacy, preservation of the American Negro, segregation at universities, and social justice reforms are discussed below.

White Supremacy

Do White supremacists exist in the United States today? Yes, a majority of the White population in the United States is White supremacists.

White supremacy is alive and prospering. However, it is not in the form of the stereotypical Klansman of yesteryear, who is now almost extinct. Today’s White supremacists are progressives, liberals, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, many libertarians. Today, White supremacists are those who support the civil rights movement and the welfare state because they believe that Blacks cannot succeed on their own. They need Whiteys’ succor. If these people want to see a White supremacist, all that they need to do is to look in a mirror.

White supremacy today exists as White parentalism toward Blacks. These Whites believe that Blacks can only advance and prosper with Whitey’s aid. Thus, they have granted Blacks many privileges that they deny themselves, such as affirmative action, quotas, lower scores for college entrance, and set-asides. Further, these White supremacists support the Civil Rights Acts, the welfare state, and most of the programs of Johnson’s Great Society and their descendants. 

Moreover, Blacks who support or believe the claims of civil rights and welfare proponents believe in White supremacy because they believe that Blacks are so inferior that they can accomplish nothing without Whitey’s granting Blacks special privileges.

Preservation of the American Negro

If conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians were asked if the American Negro, the Black race of America, should be preserved and saved from genocide, all would answer yes. Likewise, if asked if they opposed policies that resulted in the genocide of the American Negro and supported policies that preserved the American Negro, they would again answer yes.

However, if one looks at the policies that conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians promote and the policies that they oppose, one would discover that they have lied. They do not care about protecting the American Negro from genocide. If they wanted to save the American Negro, they would support policies that segregate and separate the races. Moreover, they would oppose policies that integrate and amalgamate the races. Therefore, they act oppositely from their assertion about their desire to preserve the American Negro, the Black race of America. The exception is that some liberals and progressives weakly promote some policies that aid in the preservation of the American Negro. 

Segregation at Universities

Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) sent a letter to Attorney General Barr urging him to investigate the “alarming trend of racial segregation” occurring at some universities. Universities are allowing nonwhite students to create race-based dormitories and events for Blacks and other “people of color.” (Whites are not granted such privileges except by exclusion.)

Specifically, they object to one major university having racially segregated online discussion groups with racially segregated moderators. Thus, the university created a discussion group for nonwhites only and another for Whites only.

Also, they object to another major university holding “segregated training sessions for resident assistants (RA), students who oversee dorms and enforce policies and rules.” One session was for resident assistants who were White, and another was for resident assistants who were Black and other people of color. The nonwhite session was described as “Healing Space for Staff of Color,” and the White session was described as “White Accountability Space.”

These two senators claim that such segregation violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. They express sadness about the growing trend of segregation, especially on college campuses. (These two senators err in believing that the Civil Rights Act applies to segregation by nonwhites. It intended to prevent Whites from segregating. It was never intended to prevent nonwhites from segregating.)

These two senators rail against the defense offered by the universities. The universities’ defense is that racial segregation gives “members of certain racial groups, especially minority groups, spaces where they can discuss shared concerns and issues. Thus, these defenders attempt to portray racial segregation as a tool to further diversity.” (Blacks who are seeking segregation and the university administrators who approve these requests for segregation show much more intelligence than these two senators. Unlike these senators, Blacks know that segregation promotes diversity. They know that segregation preserves diversity while integration destroys diversity. [See “Diversity” by Thomas Allen.])

Like neoconservatives and liberals, Senators Cotton and Loeffler believe that the United States are a creedal country and not a genetic country. (Also, these two senators are racial nihilists, who practice the new morality, and have no qualms about genociding the American Negro. Genociding the American Negro will be the result of the policies that they are urging.)

(Reference: “Public Colleges Defy Federal Law with Racially Segregated Events to Further Diversity,” Judicial Watch, November 13, 2020, https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/public-colleges-defy-federal-law-with-racially-segregated-events-to-further-diversity/, accessed December 2, 2020.)

Social Justice Reform

Social justice reform is easy. All that the government has to do is to release all Blacks from prison and exempt all Blacks from all laws. Then, Blacks would no longer have to pay taxes or obey traffic laws. Moreover, they will no longer be arrested for any crime including battery, theft, rape, or murder. Also, they should be allowed to take any job of any White including that of a CEO of major corporations. Further, the employer cannot require Blacks to do any work and cannot fire them. Blacks may take the house of any White along with his furniture, cars, and all other property, and the White may not object. Also, Blacks may use White women, men, and children for their sex toys without any objection from the White toys. Thus, Blacks will have received justice — if they can stop killing each other long enough to enjoy the fruits of their thefts.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

How Many?

How Many?

Thomas Allen

2 Samuel 24:9: And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

1 Chronicles 21:5 And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

According to Samuel, Judah had 500,000 men capable of bearing arms and Israel had 800,000. Yet, according to Chronicles, Judah had 470,000 men capable of bearing arms and Israel had 1,100,000 men. Which is correct: Samuel’s census of 500,000 plus 800,000 for a total of 1,300,000 or Chronicles’ census of 470,000 plus 1,100,000 for a total of 1,570,000?

Samuele Bacchiocchi, who believes that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant, claims that the writers used two different sources. Nevertheless, whichever number is correct, if either, should not have any effect on a person’s faith or practices.

In Peake’s Commentary, W.H. Bennett notes the difference between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. However, he does not explain the difference, but he believes that they are exaggerated. W.O.E Oesterley states that the writer of Chronicles may have used a different source than did the writer of Samuel, but this is uncertain.

In The Wycliffe Commentary, Barton Payne remarks that the writer of Samuel rounded the 470,000 in Chronicles to 500,000 and lowers the number of men available for combat. Otherwise, he does not explain the discrepancy.

In A New Commentary on Holy Scriptures, A. Guillaume notes the discrepancy between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, but he does not explain the difference.

In The Interpreters Commentary, John Weavers believes that the Samuel text is the original. Nevertheless, both numbers in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are exaggerated. Also, David’s census may be based on the census in Numbers 1:46, which gives 603,550 and was taken several centuries before David’s reign.

Adam Clarke states that the numbers in Samuel and Chronicles are not exaggerated. However, both cannot be correct. Moreover, it is now difficult to say which is correct. Most likely, Samuel is correct. Further, he notes that “more corruptions have taken place in the numbers of the historical books of the Old Testament than in any other part of the sacred records.” (Clarke, p. 335) He believes that trying to reconcile these differences is a waste of labor. Nevertheless, mistakes in copying may account for the difference between the two censuses.

In The Twentieth Century Commentary, D.R. Ap-Thomas states that because of corruption occurring in transmission, the numbers in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are highly unreliable. Likely, the figures have been round to the nearest 100,000, which was accurate enough for practical purposes.

Elizabeth Reed, who is a proponent of the inerrancy of the Bible, offers this solution:

It is written in 2 Sam. 24: 9, that “there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and men of Judah five hundred thousand,” but in Chron. we find “the number of Israel were eleven hundred thousand; and Judah four hundred three score and ten thousand,” making, to all appearance, a difference of three hundred thousand Israelites, and thirty thousand Benjaminites. But it appears from Chronicles that there were twelve divisions of generals, who commanded monthly, and whose duty it was to keep guard near the king’s person, each having a body of troops consisting of twenty-four thousand men, which jointly formed a grand army of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand; and as a separate body of twelve thousand men attended on the twelve princes of the twelve tribes, mentioned in the same chapter, the whole makes three hundred thousand, which is just the difference between the two accounts of eight hundred thousand, and of one million one hundred thousand. And here we have found the natural solution of the difficulty. (Reed, pp. 89-90)

Thus, the 300,000-man difference between Samuel’s number of potential warriors and the Chronicles’ is accounted for by the palace guards and the guards for the princes. Samuel did not count the 300,000 serving as guards because they were in the king’s standing army and, therefore, there was no need to count them. However, they were included in the Chronicles’ census because all men available for war including the guards were counted. She places great stress on Chronicles using “all” and Samuel omitting “all.”

She accounts for the differed count in Judah (500,000 in Samuel and 470,000 in Chronicles) by including the 300,000 troops along the border with Philistine (2 Samuel 6:1) in Samuel’s census but not in Chronicles’ census. These troops were excluded from Chronicles because they were not all of the tribe of Judah.

She is unclear about where Chronicles put the 300,000 troops on the border in its census. They are excluded from Judah but appear not to be included in Israel where she accounts for the 300,000 difference with the guards of the palace and princes. Anyway, she is the only commentator that I consulted that attempts to reconcile the difference.

Although Reed offers a plausible reconciliation of the two censuses, most commentators accept the numbers as given. Their explanations for the discrepancy are using different sources or copying errors. Regardless of whether Reed is correct or the others are correct, should one’s faith be determined by a census, which is now irrelevant to all but ancient historians?

References

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. “Biblical Errancy And Inerrancy.” Endtime Issues No. 102 – Part 2. August 19, 2003.

Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. Abridged by Ralph Earle. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967.

Davies, G. Henton, Alan Richardson, and Charles L. Wallis, editors.  The Twentieth Century Bible Commentary. Revised Edition. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1955.

Gore, Charles, Henry L. Gouge, and Alfred Guillaume, editors. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York: The Macmillian Co., 1928.

Laymon, Charles M., editor. The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.

Peake, Arthur S., editor. A Commentary on the Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., editor. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Reed, Mrs. H.V (Elizabeth). Bible Triumphant: Being a Reply to a Work Entitled 144 Self-contradictions of the Bible, Published by Andrew Jackson Davis. Harvard, Illinois: H.V. Reed, 1866.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

January 6

January 6

Thomas Allen

The so-called January 6 insurrectionists stormed the Capitol Building because they knew that the Democrats had stolen the 2020 presidential election and almost no Republican was objecting to the theft. Consequently, Nancy Pelosi established a committee to prove that President Trump organized, incited, and supported this so-call insurrection. Following are some observations on the 2020 presidential election and the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection.

– If the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election, then that means that 81 million Americans hate America so much that they voted for its destruction by electing the great destroyer, who has done an excellent job of destroying America.

– I do not understand why many of the 81 million people who voted for Biden disapprove of him. He promised to implement policies to destroy America. Eighty-one million people voted for him to carry out his promises. So far, he has been highly effective in fulfilling his promises. Yet, many people who voted for him to do what he promised to do and is doing disapprove of him. The only thing that I can figure out is that he is not destroying America fast enough to satisfy them. Perhaps, if he can provoke Russia into a nuclear war, which he is working eagerly to do, they will be satisfied.

– As braindead as Biden is, he still has more functioning brain cells than most Democrats and many Republicans. He knows that he is not the real president and admits it. Most Democrats and many Republicans refuse to admit that Biden is not the real president.

– If Trump were planning a coup, why did he authorize 20,000 national guard troops to protect the Capitol? Certainly, they would have thwarted his coup. Why did the Democratic mayor of Washington fail to order the deployment of these troops? Surely, if the Democrats suspected that Trump was planning a coup, they would have ordered the deployment of troops that Trump had authorized. Did the Democrats want to blame Trump for attempting a coup, which he never attempted or planned to attempt? Since the Democrats refused Trump’s offer of troops to protect the Capitol, they knew that he was not planning a coup. They wanted to give the appearance of a coup to use as propaganda against Trump and if possible to imprison him. However, if they knew of a planned coup and rejected the offer of troops, then they are accomplices in the coup.

– Democrats are notorious for accusing others of doing what they (the Democrats) are guilty of doing. The Democrats stole the election from Trump. Thus, to deflect attention from their theft, they accuse Trump of trying to steal the election from Biden.

– If our Representatives and Senators thought that a disorganized unarmed mob was trying to overthrow the federal government, why did they flee? Since they heavily outgunned the insurrectionists, why did they not stand and fight to save the government?  Were they cowards? Did they believe that the federal government was not worth defending? Or, did they know that this was no instruction and, therefore, lied about it being one? At least one of these three choices has to be true. If they are cowards, they should not be in Congress. If they believe that the government is not worth defending, they should not be in Congress. If they have lied, they should not be in Congress. Consequently, none of these Representatives or Senators should be in Congress.

– If anyone wants to see a Soviet show trial kangaroo court in action, he can watch the January 6 hearings. The conclusion of the committee holding the hearings was determined before the hearings started. Like the Kennedy assassination commission and the 9-11 commission, the purpose of these January 6 committee hearings is to conceal the truth and to keep the truth from being revealed.

– The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, incident reveals America’s two-standard, two-tier justice system, which is no justice system at all. On January 6, 2021, guards at the Capitol Building opened the doors and let the people inside. Some vandalized and should be punished. Yet, many of those who entered the Capitol Building who did no damage and even people who did not enter have been arrested. They have been imprisoned without due process. Many are held in solitary confinement, and some have not even been charged with a crime. Most are denied bail. Some have spent more time in jail than the length of their sentence if found guilty, and for many, their punishment far exceeds their crime. Moreover, many of those arrested committed no crime on January 6.

On the other hand, BLM and Antifa rioted, burned buildings, destroyed property, and injured numerous people. However, almost none of these rioters were arrested. Most of the few who were arrested had their charges dropped or were released with no charges. Almost none were fined or served a prison sentence. Yet, the BLM and Antifa rioters did much more damage and were a much greater threat to the country than the so-called insurrectionists on January 6.

– One purpose of the  House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, incident is to provide cover for a stolen election. It is an attempt to convince people that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election by persuading people that Trump was the one trying to steal the election. Another purpose is to provide anti-Trumpers propaganda for the upcoming 2022 and 2024 elections. Also, the Democrats and other anti-Trumpers are using the January 6 investigation to justify lynching Trump. (If they could literally lynch Trump, they would. They know that they can get away with it because the US Department of [In]justices would do nothing but protect them from local law enforcement. They need only do the lynching in a Blue State.)

– Nancy Pelosi’s closing remarks to the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection:

This Committee has proven beyond any doubt what it set out to prove. We have shown that Donald Trump while dressed in a military battle uniform led a heavily armed million-man army to the Capitol Building with the intent to overthrow the government. If it were not for the courageous Democratic members of the House and Senate, who, although unarmed and standing alone, fearlessly fought Trump’s army for hours in hand-to-hand combat and finally drove Trump and his army away from the Capitol Building, the government would have fallen, and Trump would be a dictator. These brave Democrats saved democracy. We have proven this with bias, prejudicial, and at times fabricated testimony while suppressing all testimony that refutes the guilt of Trump and the goals of this inquiry.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.