Spelling good or not your reply is funny also....thanks for lightening up my day!

JW...As a true Agnostic you are not shunning God....you are just wondering 'How can I know there is a God, and if there is a God what does He do??? Why does He do it??? Why does He allow such terrible things ??? etc. .But the one thing we all need to have is Faith that things can be good !! Do we place that Faith in ourselves...one among billions to right all wrongs ?? Do we place that Faith in men ....who have shown collectively that they cannot be trusted of their own volition to be totally honest and trust worthy ??? Is life actually just one big dice roll OR do we make choices ??? I know me personally that I have had dozens of Major Crossroads where I had to choose between what was best for me personally vs. what was best for my family,neighbors,community,etc.....when I chose the ' what is good for me ' path....it never worked out !! Luck of the draw ??? Maybe ??? But my mother tried to abort me multiple times ( I love my mother and miss her dearly) My Godmother was the best Godmother a person ever had ( she told me just before she got real sick that she always felt she had to watch over me)...I should have died over 7 times that I count....and the Drs. thought I was never going to get out of the hospital alive 4 times!! Luck of the draw ??? Maybe ! Or is it that my job isn't done yet ??? I don't have answers, just questions, and FAITH and an understanding that there has got to be Someone better than me watching out for me, guiding me and who am I to question His judgement !!! If I'm wrong ...Oh well !!! I did my best to be good and I'm happy ! I believe in Jesus ,God the Father and the Holy Spirit.....If my Faith was misplaced I don't care I did what I could to not add to the misery of people and hopefully brought some joy and happiness to others, for me that is all I could do...and way more than people even thought I would do since I wasn't supposed to be here....the final question is ...What is the Final Chapter ????
JW, I wish you peace , happiness, and you pass it around the best you can ....sometimes that is as good as it's going to be!!

Now those are funny....and clean....nice for a change....do you think I could Like !! pass for the girl buying the Mercedes for her Grandparents????

Hi PR...In addition to being a hypocrite....he's a 'backstabbingcrite'..nes pa??? He not only stole my Green New Deal ( which by the way I renamed New Green Deal to fool Nancy because SHE put the kibosh on the old stupid now defunct Green New Deal) which I originally stole from the UN ...they are real smart ya know !! I'm not the kind to call most people stupid but most people are 'dumb as rocks' ( which is actually an oxymoron considering that my pet rock is Like ! waaaay! smarter than me). Anyway ,Booinie never addressed how he came up with the " Only 12 yrs. left " idea ( which I stole from the UN which in no way is comprised of C****es). Welllll!!! Ya see, back in Like January,2006...my friend ,mentor,never fly jets person [except unless it is absolutely necessary...which is always], and fellow weight watcher, predicted we only had 10 years left [ Like that means exactly January,2016]....well he was 'dumb as me or a rock ...that's not my pet rock' to say something that bad!!! I said it would be ABOUT 12 years....and I didn't say when the 12 years begin or end . SEE !!! Problem Solved !!!!
Now he bystepped the question of Econmics as to how he would pay for ALL THIS wonderful FREE stuff ( Like! That means it don't cost you nothing.......[ make believe whisper...'as you use it'] . Well he couldn't answer it because he doesn't have a Ph. Like! D. in Macro Economic Systems Affecting The Entire Macroness of the NEW GREEN DEAL....but lucky for us I do ....mainly because I robbed the idea first !!
Here are my calculations....which most of you won't be able to follow ( you know the rock thingy):
Unfunded Liabilities, $200T
NEW GREEN DEAL, $150T ( 10 yrs.... when lying always 'low ball' )
Debt $22.5T +
Annual Budget $ 50T + ( 10Yrs. ....see above)

RGDP ( money available)$ 200T ( 10 Yrs )

NOW.....the Magic of the AHO-C mathematical formula....Lets seee!! Like! ( I always think better...which actually isn't saying much...when I say Like! first...Ooops ! I just put Like! toward the end and at the beginning now I can't think as good...) Add The Expenditures= $422.5 T ...subtract the RGDP ( so we all don't eat ,or pay our bills, I got it Mom and Dad will pay for us !!! Ooops I hit a snag here) ...Anyway thats how it works....we're screwed !!! You can thank me later .

FALSE ALARM ALERT by AHO-C!!! ( Like !! Possibly Maybe !! I Think!)[Eli Sanders' Naturalization papers should be produced to be definitive .....that sort of makes ,like, common sense and should matter ]


" When you judge others ,you do not define them....you define yourself" Earl Nightingale. OR... Like!! You just h**e women of color ( Like this is my typical fallback position !!).
Now with all that out of the way ...I stand corrected...and may I suggest that you did not adequately close the loop either....but to me that is .....Like! Irrelevant.....following are the major Court Cases that led me to this conclusion:

[ Source ] Requirements Including Determining Whether a Candidate Meets the Eligibility Requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 11, 2011
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875): Providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898): The question that Minor did not answer was answered by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898), in which the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents, in no way disturbed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” for it was asked to decide only if Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also allowed Wong to be a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” because it found that his parents, while not U.S. citizens, were, among other things, domiciliaries, residents of the United States, and not working in some foreign diplomatic capacity and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So Wong decided only the “citizen” part of Wong’s status. It never decided whether he also had the “natural born” part. The Court cautioned in its opinion in the beginning and at its end that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment and also informed us under what limited conditions (born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not employed in some foreign diplomatic capacity) it ruled that he was so.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): Other than Minor v. Happersett, Perkins is the only Supreme Court decision to declare someone a “natural born Citizen.” The person was born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father and citizen mother through derivative citizenship.[ AHO-C comment: Like! Bernie's situation ]

The last word on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” was provided by Minor v. Happersett. It is important to note that the Court decided Minor after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed which tells us that the Court gave us that definition knowing that the Fourteenth Amendment defined a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” This same definition had been stated by Rep. John Bingham, who in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment, stated Vattel’s definition thus: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866). As we have seen, this definition was confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Our Supreme Court has never changed this American common law definition and it prevails today. For more information on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” please see the many essays on its meaning at http://puzo1.blogspot.com and at http://www.protectourliberty.org.

While the Constitution does not define a “natural born Citizen,” the states can apply the definition of the “natural born Citizen” clause in keeping with the sources stated herein. What is imperative is that the states apply the “natural born Citizen” clause as intended by the Constitution. See Matter of Kryzan v. New York State Bd. of E******ns, 2008 NY Slip Op 8354, 55 A.D.3d 1217, 865 N.Y.S.2d 793, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8129 (the only requirement of New York’s e******n law that the candidate be a resident of the State did not violate the Constitution’s Congressional Qualification Clause). Applying the “natural born Citizen” clause in keeping with the Constitution will not violate the fundamental principle identified in Powell that in our representative form of government “the people should choose whom they please to govern them.” Powell, 395 U.S. at 547. Applying the “natural born Citizen” clause pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent and other sources herein identified does not create an absolute bar to any one person or a class thereof being able to be President any more than the Constitution itself requir

That is not the point ...there is a huge difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen ...A Natural Born Citizen must have both parents Born in the USA...Sorry the cases you have cited are for a Citizenship
classification only .... The distinction is to ensure that a President has a strong connection with the Country !!!! Bernie's Father was a Naturalized Citizen ( ie not born in the USA )....The Law of Nations. by de Vattel was the 'handbook' that the Founders used to construct the Constitution. Please read the attached. The Constitution clearly states that a Citizen can be a Senator or Representative, and the President must be a 'Natural Born Citizen'.....

Attached file:
(Download)

Carol/Everyone......'Natural Born Citizen Violation ALERT!!!'.....Bernie's Father,by his own admission on TV,immigrated from Poland when he [ie Booinie's dad] was 21....his mother was born in NYC !!! Bernie is not a 'Natural Born Citizen' ....He does not even have the most important basic requirement to be President....this a*********n to our Constitution cannot go unnoticed/unpunished.....we need to file a protest in regards to his lack of qualifications to the President Trump so his Staff can properly address this matter !
I will be researching the compatibility of Socialism with the US Constitution and will inform everyone about what I find as issues...there are other things I'm working on also !!
Oops, I slipped out of character for a bit there...I was so enamored with Bernie's Town Hall meeting that I like . you know, ummm!,had a rare case of 'Temporary Sanity'....I'm back to normal now... You are da bomb I*****l A***ns....I mean phony Asylum Seeking Sisters ....Oh! That's like tooooo long I'll just call them phony ASS's !!!

As you have surmised the AHO part is a holistic whole OR rather [w]hole ....so to speak!!

Now you tell me!!! I think I just ate some fly ca-ca OR some really lousy pepper /

I thought that this group may appreciate a touch of 'AOCness' light-headedness....unfortunately I don't believe she acts like she does for HA-HA's !

Thank you...I hope to learn a lot from the 'Veteran' users !!

teabag09 Congratulates AHO-C !!!.....Could you picture CNN or MSNBC posting that on their screen runner at the bottom of the picture....you gotta admit that's hilarious ( to us I mean) the Dems will probably try to find us and shout us down in a restaurant ( I hope!)

Thanks Proud Republican .....the approaching e******ns could mean the total destruction of this Country if people do not start paying attention to what is going on and how it is being politicized.I know that everyone on this site knows that....otherwise they wouldn't be here....this Constitutional Republic ( I h**e the phrase 'Our Democracy' it is not only misleading it is an 'Alinsky' lie tactic to convince the 'Useful I***ts' that the E*******l College is broken and needs 'Termination') requires that people realize that it is their Representatives /Senators/President that make the final decisions....not the 'Majority'....be informed OR be doomed !! it is that simple.

Thank you for your kind words....this site appears to have more discussion and a little less vitriol than most...about to heat up with 2020 coming ....and 2020 is just the approximate number of Dems running for President....that is 1 more than the R's had last time. They will find out how hard it is to 'Stand Alone' when they all basically have cookie cutter positions ...and just to keep my observations cordial .....differ only in the idiosyncratic means of presenting their positions.....which range from the frantic pantomimist motions of Buttho O'Dourke ( my brotha' from a different motha') , the whinny nasal sniveling of Fauxcahontas, and the REAL touchy/feely/squeezy/rubby/hair sniffing/creepy mannerisms of 'Uncle Joe' the over bearing Schmo...to Cory 'Spartacus' Booker the melodramatic 'Shakesperiano' prone to excessive prose in his desire to achieve folk hero status , and of course 'Boiney' Sanders the Saul Alinsky wannabe using 'Alinsky's 12 rules....although he may be getting close to violating number 7 by talking about 'healthcare' ( ie. he actually is referring to health insurance , which is a means of funding Medical Care) incessantly and could lose the interest of his minions due to monotony in his presentation of it.

I like that MAGA...now if you need practice on how you can get a******l...I can teach you how to strategically place the word 'Like' in your prose, how to write bills and sign them , how to be a 'Ghost Representative' and claim you live anywhere USA...how to babble incoherently, how to rent an apt. (sort of ),how to properly brush and floss your teeth,fly airplanes while critizing those who use them....you know in general the whole Pharisee thing!!