Replies

Tin foil on sale at Costco - stock up while you can!

Your opinions are not carved in stone, nor can you make the Constitution say anything you wish. At some point, it has to become connected with reality.

That reality suggests NBC is defined by common law, or by a French philosopher a few years after the Constitution was written. Remember, the Constitution does NOT call for the candidate to be “indigenous”, which is the term used by Vattel.

At a bare minimum, it ought to be possible for you to acknowledge that someone can disagree with your definition of NBC without being an Army or CIA psyops agent, or a paid employee of Obama.

Here’s where you are at:

Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, every member of Congress, every Governor, every state legislature and the Supreme Court are all CIA psyops agents,

OR it is possible to disagree with you without being a traitor or an Obamabot.

BTW - the horses have been exercised, and if I were a bit more ambitious I’d be out digging some 5’ x 2’ holes to plant olive trees near the road.

“Which end of that horse is the source of your posts???? :)”

My wife of 23 years would tell Uncle Chip that MOST of my opinions come from the aft end of the horse...and who am I to argue with my wife?

Your opinions are not carved in stone, nor can you make the Constitution say anything you wish. At some point, it has to become connected with reality...OR it is possible to disagree with you without being a traitor or an Obamabot.

Now there's an intelligent answer from someone who has his head stuck so far up the arse of ignorance he can not see or think straight. It is you who continually refuses to adhere by the rules in which a law is to be interpreted. You cast away the founders who framed & penned the law. We do not bring you our opinions, we continually bring to the debate intelligent & fact based historical evidence of law. There was over 100 years of US case law & US State & AG Ops on the subject of citizenship, the immigration laws were such that "children of aliens" was worded in a way the no doubt could be derived that it meant all inclusive, not exclusive and there was also plenty of congressional record of debate from the framers of the 14th that Gray used in 1884 when writing the deciding opinion in Elk. You still have yet to answer what changed between 1884 & 1898 that sent Gray ignoring the rules and over a 100 yrs of US case law. What happened in that time that changed his opinion thereby reverting to old English feudal law instead of civil natural law of our country whose court he sat upon. The 14th was passed to right the wrong done to the black slaves, not any wrong done to some foreigner who happened to have a child born onour soil. Like it or not, that is the way it was & is. We are ot going to sit silent while progressive global socialist try to destroy & rewrite our heritage.

WE DO NOT CONSENT