> Throughout the case they rely on English common law that
> being born in the country makes one a natural born
> subject. That is the same thing as a natural born citizen.
Your “leap of faith” with legal definitions is as laughable as
your “leaps of faith” with LYING CROOKS who provide an
UNRELIABLE document to MORE LYING CROOKS
that’s never been seen by a Judge in a Court of Law.
Parsi, you place WAY too much BLIND FAITH in the people who
deserve it the least!
Blind faith? Maybe something else.
Here’s where I spank you. Look what you say:
“Throughout the case they rely on English common law that
> being born in the country makes one a natural born
> subject. That is the same thing as a natural born citizen.
Your “leap of faith” with legal definitions is as laughable”
Then in another post, you ask me “what about indians and chinese” more or less.
If you have read the case, you know about the Indians. Its real clear. SO, If you don’t know about the indians, you haven’t read the case.
If you haven’t read the case, then you are in no position to call it a leap of faith. And you can’t say it is laughable.
You have some responsibility, in an argument, to be honest and to behave. So, do your homework. Read the case. Then make honest comments. Don’t pretend to know about a case you apparently haven’t read.
Now I have answered this question about native born whatevers a half dozen times or so tonite. The evidence is there. If you don’t agree, it takes something more than “You’re crazy, parsy” to express that. Reason, logic, cites, analysis, all these things are fine.
But if all you want to do is call me names, then that isn’t very productive for either of us. So, grow up. Read the cases, and if you don’t have valid basis for your statements, just post cute pictures and say “Hi”.
parsy, who says,”Go to the corner! Stand there with your nose against the wall for 5 minutes! When your five minutes are up, you may return to the computer. Look up Wong and read the case. Let me know if you need a link,”