fauxlaw

how many more Central and Southern American Narco-States is the US going to invade

Curious invasion. The arresting g force entered Venezuela for the purpose of arresting and extraditing Maduro. That done, the arresting force left the country.

Which ones [more Central and Southern American Narco-States] have the most oil and natural resources?

So, you believe this exercise to capture a drug lord was really an occupation off another country try's natural resources? Believe what you wish; speaking of wish balloons.

Can't be a felon until a felony case in court is concluded. The one felony conviction Trump has, to date, is not yet a settled case, my friend. Did you forget [conveniently]? Words mean things. Use them correctly, please.

How is this not going to help Venezuela? 20 years ago, before Maduro, Venezuela was a wealthy nation, and ally to the U.S. Maduro destroyed it. Yes, they are fortunate to have a rich supply of oil to produce and market to the world, yet Maduro, by erosional greed, wasted that production and they now lack the revenue stream that production and trade gave them. We do not want to merely have Maduro replaced without our assistance to those people to choose a wise leader who will return that nation to prominence. We are not gin g to rape that nation of its plentiful resources, but we are going to be compensated for our assistance. We do not want nor need to permanently take over Venezuela and will not do that. This is all we did for Germany [twice], Japan, Vietnam, Iraq, and now others. Where was your complaint, then? Is yours just Trump hate, or is there a real argument?

My commentary of my #28 to you, too.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."

Is the first conditional of two by the 14A to be a citizen. The foreigner, subject to the jurisdiction of another nation as a citizen; being born here of at least one US citizen parent, or a foreign er who is naturalized [i.e., meets all requirements of legal entry into the U.S. and desires to become a US citizen].

A foreigner who crosses the border illegally [explained in my #14] does not meet the first conditional.

The second condition is being subject to the jurisdiction of the US by a US citizenship perspective.

A foreigner who crosses the border illegally [explained in my #14] does not meet the second conditional.

First plus second failure to meet conditions = not a citizen of the US

Therefore, a child born of parents who do not meet the first and second conditions is not a citizen of the US merely by being born here, since neither parent meets these two conditions.

No, words are defined by definition

By whose dictionary, boyo? Dictionaries differ in their stated definitions. And are we talking the noun, love, or the verb? The online Merriam-Webster offers 8 definitions as a noun; 4 as a verb. My OED Unabridged offers 24 definitions for the noun; 16 for the verb. What's wrong with M-W's dictionary? They're both Engish language dictionaries, yet M-W's offerings are clearly, sorely lacking. So much for dictionary definitions, only. Why do we diagram English sentences in school grammar classes if context is not a definition factor? No, my friend, you're absolutely unwound on that claim. I do own a lingustics baccalaureate [one of several], plus an English Lit PhD [one of several]. You? So, now you have my scholastic justification for my stated necessity of context. Yours?

Oh, deceive? Yeah, it is an effort to make someone believe something that is not true, but it is not merely a lie. A lie is a sub-set of deception, but there is more to deception than merely lying. It uses other words, actions, omissions, and [son-of-a-gun!] exploitation of my C-word, context.

A simple, successful, eventful execution of an indictment against Maduro, his complicit wife, and son, against a criminal drug lord who has destroyed his wealthy nation of Venezuela inside of 20 years [the average is 40] demonstrating, once again, the failure of socialism to endure because, though a very wealthy nation, Maduro hasn't a clue how to create wealth in an ongoing revenue stream for his nation, while ripping off money from his alleged constituents to line his own pocket. Greed is the death of socialism. Sorry, guys, always was, always will be.

Maduro [along with other Venezuelan officials] were indicted by US DoJ in March of 2020. Biden, taking charge late January 2021, did nothing in 4 years but coddle Maduro [and everyone else who decided to step over the border illegally. Maduro was smart enough to avoid that.] After a good year of warning Maduro to step down from his "re-election" [resumption of criminal occupation of Venezuela] DoJ performed a legitimate arrest of the indicted Maduro with the assist of US military in a virtually flawless operation that cost zero US lives and minor damage to an aircraft able to remain in the air. A legal operation which may be looked upon by the International Criminal Court with suspicion, but the US is not a member of the ICC, and does not recognize its assumed jurisdiction over the US. Congress was notified of the operation when it was prudent to do so, but so Congress could not leak the details to the press, and Maduro. Gee, sorry about that. Perfectly legal - they were notified, thought they will surely raise a stink. They're good at that; stinking, that is.

You go to excessive lengths to attempt to translate a single word, in this case, Makr "مكر", when we all know part of meaning of single words is its use in context, so the single effort to define a word, when most words have multiple meaning in context, and when all words in translation become difficult meaning-wise because no langauge's lexicon [word list] is the identical duplicate of another language, so translation comes with compromise in addition to context. For example, Makr may also be interpreted as "cunning," which has wicked intent, but also righteous intent, again, depending on context. You have not bothered including context, so... pffft.

Key Prophecies Not Met (from a Jewish Perspective)

I will not say that the accusation of the "key prophecies not met" are exclusively a Jewish perspective. Many Christians, but also many agnostics, and virtually all atheists, condemn the apparent lack, as well, but, whenever did Jesus give us an accurate timing of fulfillment? No he did not, because it is also said scripturally that "no man knows the hour," though many have guessed, and failed. It's possible that Christ, himself, may be out of the loop in knowledge for when it occurs [my suggestion, only] but that he will come when God the Father commands. I'd say: Stop trying to guess when, and, as taught by the parable of the ten virgins, prepare to be worthy of greeting the bridegroom [Christ] when he comes. What's wrong with preparation for the event rather than merely clodding away the time in attempts to guess the hour? Do we not pray in the Lord's Prayer "...Thy kingdom come, thy will be done..."? These are not words of panic, but words of encouragement, if we are prepared, but words of fear if we are not. It's an attempt to be positive about the event, When we are prepared, when does it matter when he comes? It will happen whenever it will occur. Then, the "unmet prophecies" will be fulfilled.

The problem many protests have [maybe most of them] is that protest that includes violence, destruction of property, or as extreme as loss of life to justify their protest because, they claim, the Constitution allows protest is nonsense. The constitutional allowance of protest is conditional because the wording in the 1A clause is "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There is nothing of about "peaceably to assemble" that would justify violence, destruction of property, or loss of life by protest. Words mean things, particularly those that are actually there, and not just interpreted as content, even by the Supreme Court.

I'll be clear: I oppose birthright citizenship. I do not think...

“anchor babies” are constitutionally citizens,

just as I do not think there is "separation of church and state," because in neither case does the constitutional language say those things. In both cases, that thinking is merely Supreme Court opinion - precedent - which, as I've said, is only treated as statutory law, but is not, but merely interpretation of what is as vague commentary. As I've also said numerous times, when the Court makes precedent, Congress ought to step in to formally legislate a Court precedent to make it law, and allow the political back-and-forth to flesh out all the questions that are, legally, merely talked around in a Court precedent. Rarely, however, does Congress take up the gauntlet to do that. That is one reason why there are eight amendments about voting [the most amendments about any singular subject], and the subject is still highly confused, such as if alien persons in the US can vote just because they are here. Women should have been given the right to vote from direct constitutional language, which, at the time, in Europe, was thought heresy, even though women were considered citizens of those countries. The US, then, followed that paradigm when they were allegedly rebelling from the European model. I've never said the Constitution is a perfect document. It is intended, by Madison's words in the Preamble, to be an effort of a continuously improving "more perfect union."

If, as it is claimed by many, including you, that the 14A was intended to be interpreted as addressing the citizenship of former slaves, I find it curious that the text does not once mention slaves or slavery. By the same token, it should have acknowledged by specific wording that women should be allowed to vote, since slaves were not allowed to vote, but that had to wait for over 50 years to stipulate, while slaves [men] were, upon ratification of the 14A, allowed that privilege [with opposition by the Southern states], even though women were always recognized as citizens.

I'll be clear: I oppose birthright citizenship. I do not think...

“anchor babies” are constitutionally citizens,

just as I do not think there is "separation of church and state," because in neither case does the constitutional language say those things. In both cases, that thinking is merely Supreme Court opinion - precedent - which, as I've said, is only treated as statutory law, but is not, but merely interpretation of what is as vague commentary. As I've also said numerous times, when the Court makes precedent, Congress ought to step in to formally legislate a Court precedent to make it law, and allow the political back-and-forth to flesh out all the questions that are, legally, merely talked around in a Court precedent. Rarely, however, does Congress take up the gauntlet to do that. That is one reason why there are eight amendments about voting, and the subject is still highly confused, such as if alien persons in the US can vote just because they are here. Women should have been given the right to vote from direct constitutional language, which, at the time, in Europe, was thought heresy, even though women were considered citizens of those countries. The US, then, followed that paradigm when they were allegedly rebelling from the European model. I've never said the Constitution is a perfect document. It is intended, by Madison's words in the Preamble, to be an effort of a continuously improving "more perfect union."

If, as it is claimed by many, including you, that the 14A was intended to be interpreted as addressing the citizenship of former slaves, I find it curious that the text does not once mention slaves or slavery. By the same token, it should have acknowledged by specific wording that women should be allowed to vote, since slaves were not allowed to vote, but that had to wait for over 50 years to stipulate, while slaves [men] were, upon ratification of the 14A, allowed that privilege [with opposition by the Southern states], even though women were always recognized as citizens.

I disagree. When I launch a Forum topic, I hope for, and expect alternate commentary that differs from mine. I detest the thought of group-think. That's just willing Communism, and that philosophy is a proven failure.

The question is based upon that which you haven't ignored...And that's on you Faux.

As is my privilege, in the limited scope of the topic; the topic is mine, isn't it?

Your opinion is limited to your own simple tax return.

I've never said otherwise

Jurisdiction isn’t an all or nothing proposition; “you’re either subject to country A or country B”,

You'd best study US immigration law with regard to a person entering the US illegally. Every country has the right to establish its own immigration law, and they do vary. In the US, the national border is sacred relative to a foreigner entering without appearing before US Border Patrol, even if claiming . Every foreigner in the US by this infraction is subject to be deported by federal law, even if claiming refugee status. If the violator continues into the US beyond the border, they are still subject to deportation. In that respect, the violator is subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but they retain their foreign nation citizenship, and therefore, jurisdiction. So, there is concurrent jurisdiction, contrary to your claim.

...verses that intend to create division is Jesus ordering everyone to love him or else.

Again, is that not an issue of potential poor translation [either innocently, or by intended corruption] and not representative of what Christ actually may have said?

why was it that god withdrew "his spirit"?

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." This is the Lord God speaking [Matthew 7: 23]. He is saying he will not abide the presence of evil, a pattern set when Satan and his minions were cast out of heaven. Either evil is removed, or else God and the Holy Spirit will withdraw from evil. The two will not long abide together.

people who enter the US illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

Only in so far as their infractions of immigration law by crossing the border without required clearance from Border Patrol. Otherwise, they remain subject to the jurisdiction of a nation that is not the United States relative to citizenship, either for themselves or their children, unless in addition to crossing the national border illegally, they commit other crime[s] as well.

... this law was written for the slaves that were brought to this country and their children.

Show that singular justification to me in the constitutional language. Therefore, it amounts, as most other commentary on interpretation, which itself, is not statutory law, is it? Kind of like finding "separation of church and state" in the language of the 1A, or "privacy" or "separation of powers" in any constitutional language. Yes, these, too, are subject to interpretation, and that is officially a task for the Supreme Court, and not necessarily the rest of us, officially. Should we expect to manage our behavior on interpretation, or should we have more succinct constitutional or statutory law? There is the downside of simply abiding by "precedent."

Trump seems to think that he has the divine authority to do anything.

Yes, to some, like you, who find it impossible to ignore him. That's on you.

And gormless Americans don't or didn't seem to care.

Yes, to some, like you, who find it impossible to ignore him. That's on you.

Nonetheless, time will tell and Trump's fate will unravel.

As for all of us. Meanwhile, that's an issue for all who, like you, find it impossible to ignore him. That's on you. Meanwhile, you seem to have ignored the question. So be it.

Repeat: Did I say I was a tax expert, or that I am obligated to hire one? It's called "compensation." Okay? Is it somehow required in your world that I employ a tax expert? Sorry; not in mine.

The other three Greek "loves" are Ludus [playful, flirtatious], Pragma [practical, committed to duty, loyalty, understanding], and Philautia [bifurcated into both healthy self-care and unhealthy narcissism].

Your verse citations of apparent hate brought by Christ are examples of why I [and many others, including in religious scholarship] maintain the Bible, while honored as the word of God, was likely inspired perfectly, but not interpreted by man perfectly [since God did not actually write a single syllable with the exception, perhaps, of the plates allegedly containing the Ten Commandments. I say "alleged" because we s9mply do not have those artifacts today. the Bible is therefore NOT infallible due to errant translation, even by original authors. That is why we must take the advice of James [James 1] seriously and with purposeful intent to seek God on prayer for personal revelation to us of what is wisdom & truth in the scriptures, and what is not. The claim that direct revelation from God discontinued after the first century C.E. is simply nonsense. Why would God remove himself from our honest pursuit of truth? Doubt is a truth killer. That is what is meant by serious and purposeful intent to know.

Your commentary is mostly good, but gold is/should be a long term investment, longer even than 20 years. Why sell if selling isn’t necessary? I’ve been buying gold since late 70s when Carter was messing with the economy. I now own physical gold (not just paper, which has no intrinsic value, even when “representing” gold shares); just over 100 lbs. Silver , too. Never have sold an ounce. Never needed to sell, so, I don’t.

This is a current case before the Supreme Court to accept, or not.

it may surprise some who think I’m a Trumper. I’ve said multiple times I am not, but your trend is disbelief.

i hope the Court throws out the case, because it should not need litigation. The President does not have ultimate, unlimited power by EO, period. The case should be a lost cause for Trump. This is a matter for legislation by Congress, not litigation by the President.

I think Congress will circle-jerk, but do nothing.

Thzank you for your #17

Show me specifically where and when I’ve said I oppose conservation and alternative energy sources. Do it and stop making asinine accusations. That’s a lost argument.

Never attended Trump U. Don’t even know where or if it still exists. I’m not the Trump suck up you assume I am.

And there are no 100% fools? That, itself, seems foolish.

Maybe you need more detain on your last point because WE DO NOT KNOW how long the petroleum crude-making process requires, just that it has endured, and continues its production today. Nothing stopped that process other than the attempt to claim it stopped. Convenient claim, but with absolutely no empiric evidence that it did.

100% atheist