100% correct.
One of the tactics for establishing societal control used by communists is called a 'struggle session'. In short, a large group of true believers will harrass and publicly humiliate a wrong-thinker until they kow-tow and apologize for their wrong-think.
That's what they are attempting here. Classic communist tactics.
No, it is not. Its birthright citizenship. If either one of your parents is a citizen of the United States, you are born into your citizenship.
The part that should be removed is the part where anyone born on United States soil is automatically a citizen. 'Anchor babies' are a direct result of that wording. Birthright citizenship is the better of the two options; that way, at least one of your parents would have had to have gone through the process of obtaining citizenship.
It would have, eventually. The issue was that the different cotton bolls mature at different rates on each stalk. Early mechanical harvesters would destroy the plant on the first pass, losing 3/4 to 4/5ths of the harvest. The different maturation rates is also why cotton needed slave labor; one couldn't just hire some farm hands for a week or two during harvest season, like tobacco plantations were able to. Each cotton field would have to be picked several times over the course of a 2-3 month long harvest season.
It wasn't until the 1950s that IH created the first commercially successful mechanical cotton picker. More recent selective breeding and genetic modification had made the cotton bolls mature at the same time.
The labor-intensive nature of cotton harvesting was the primary reason for the use of slave labor on cotton plantations.
source: https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/machines_15.html
I sometimes like to speculate about how events would have developed if the early textile mills had settled on a different natural fiber, rather than cotton. Flax and Hemp come to mind. Their harvesting process is less labor intensive than cotton, the extraction and preparation of the fibers is heavily labor intensive. On the other hand, that process can be (and has been) heavily mechanized. Perhaps slavery would have quietly died out in the US, as the founding fathers had believed it would have, if British and Northern US textile mills hadn't dramatically increased the demand for cotton, turning a somewhat obscure plant into a major cash crop.
You know, I was just arguing with someone the other day. I was saying that all this censorship of conservatives on social media would eventually spread to ISPs. This may not be an ISP blocking the site, but its still a 'muh private company' deciding which websites can and cannot be accessed.
I wish that I had been wrong.
Oh yes, thats a smart idea.
- be against Net Neutrality
- Make your own site.
- Media labels your new site as white supremacist.
- ISPs don't have to treat all traffic equally, so they throttle and/or ban your site in the name of fighting white supremacy.
- You've completely removed yourself and/or been removed from online discourse.
- ????
- Profit! (Just not for you).
If we the people, and our elected representatives, don't start cracking some eggs, we will be forced into silence. Once we can no longer speak up, expect to be marginalized, fired from your jobs, have your bank accounts closed and homes foreclosed on, your remaining assets 'repossessed', you and your family forced to live on the streets and/or be jailed, forced into a 're-education camp', and either brainwashed into absolute compliance or shoved into a gas chamber with the rest of us deplorables.
If our elected representatives refuse to take action on our behalf, well. At that point, even the most reasonable individual may be forced into unreasonable action.
In the mean time, though, start a class action lawsuit against Twitter. Crowdfund and beg for donations to get by. Do whatever it takes to keep the lawsuit going. Take reasonable action until all reasonable paths have been closed.
Trump is already doing it. Step 1: Bring back well-paying manufacturing jobs. Step 2: Economic Opportunity Zones. Step 3: Reduce black unemployment. Step 4: Gradually reduce welfare benefits. Step 5: Repeat steps 1-4 as necessary. Step 6: ???? Step 7: Profit!
It's just like DACA, an executive order to specifically not enforce an extant law. The problem with that is that a future president can use an executive order to remove a previous executive order.
Unless that president is being blocked by a 9th circuit judge or a supreme court decision.
"Pocket sand!"
"Augh!"