"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Truth2Know]

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

 

[Truth2Know]

Here is the intent of the 14th amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

An "anchor baby" is like someone breaking into your house, birthing a child, and then forcing you to care for the child. Then, while you care for the child, the birth mother comes along and says you can't separate her from her child, so you must care for her, too. Plus the other "family" so attached to the new child.

We must wake up and quit quibbling over words. Do what's right, not what some lawyer try to say is right through their convoluted logic and abuse of the English language.

 

[80zephyr]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.

Mark

That opinion and 2 bucks will get your buck of coffee.

The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.

Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?

After all, didn't they also have legal training?

Mark

 

[BULLDOG]

It's your silly claim. Where is the link?

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.

Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.

As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.

Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.

You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?

Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.

The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....

and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?

I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything

 

[Syriusly]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.

Mark

That opinion and 2 bucks will get your buck of coffee.

The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.

Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?

After all, didn't they also have legal training?

Mark

You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.

The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'

Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.

Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.

 

[Syriusly]

Here is the intent of the 14th amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

An "anchor baby" is like someone breaking into your house, birthing a child, and then forcing you to care for the child. Then, while you care for the child, the birth mother comes along and says you can't separate her from her child, so you must care for her, too. Plus the other "family" so attached to the new child.

We must wake up and quit quibbling over words. Do what's right, not what some lawyer try to say is right through their convoluted logic and abuse of the English language.

Or we could respect the actual words of the 14th Amendment- and change it if you think it is incorrect.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment which requires that we can't separate an illegal immigrant from her legal citizen child. We can deport the mother, and if the mother chooses to bring her child with her, she can. If she doesn't, the child can be treated like any of the several hundred thousand abandoned American citizen children we have.

 

[Conservative65]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.

Mark

That opinion and 2 bucks will get your buck of coffee.

The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.

Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?

After all, didn't they also have legal training?

Mark

You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.

The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'

Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.

Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.

Dred Scott dealt specifically with black slaves. The 14th Amendment was written with the intent of correcting Dred Scott as related to the now former black slaves not to give children who were born here due solely to a crime citizenship. You can keep saying that's what it means but you would be wrong.

 

[Conservative65]

Here is the intent of the 14th amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

An "anchor baby" is like someone breaking into your house, birthing a child, and then forcing you to care for the child. Then, while you care for the child, the birth mother comes along and says you can't separate her from her child, so you must care for her, too. Plus the other "family" so attached to the new child.

We must wake up and quit quibbling over words. Do what's right, not what some lawyer try to say is right through their convoluted logic and abuse of the English language.

Or we could respect the actual words of the 14th Amendment- and change it if you think it is incorrect.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment which requires that we can't separate an illegal immigrant from her legal citizen child. We can deport the mother, and if the mother chooses to bring her child with her, she can. If she doesn't, the child can be treated like any of the several hundred thousand abandoned American citizen children we have.

We should respect the intent behind those words.

I don't have a problem sending the illegal tramp back to her home country without her child. Since the child she leaves isn't mine, it's not mine to support. Let the child stay as long as taxpayers don't have to support it.

 

[Truth2Know]

I would like everyone to respect the actual intent. The "actual words" do not convey the intent when the "actual words" have been distorted by some. Illegal aliens dumping babies to gain citizenship is an unintended consequence not envisioned in 1868.

 

[80zephyr]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.

Mark

That opinion and 2 bucks will get your buck of coffee.

The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.

Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?

After all, didn't they also have legal training?

Mark

You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.

The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'

Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.

Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.

Mark

That opinion and 2 bucks will get your buck of coffee.

The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.

Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?

After all, didn't they also have legal training?

Mark

You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.

The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'

Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.

Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

Mark

Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.

And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.

If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.

 

[Flopper]

The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was never intended by its author (Jacob Howard), to give citizenship to foreigners, just because the parents came here before they were born (to acquire a lifetime of benefits at US taxpayer expense, from the birth of that child on the US side of the border).
Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That may have been the author's intent but was that the intent of US Congress and the states that approved the amendment? There is no way of knowing. So we are left with what is in the constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the citizenship clause to the birth of children of illegal immigrants in the US, it would seems unlikely that they would narrow the scope of the clause.based on a claim of jurisdiction.

If it did happen, just think of the paperwork. Any or every birth could require research as to the citizenship status of its parents. Since many people are still in denial about the President’s birthplace, one can only imagine how complicated this could get in terms of DNA and document authentication. At a minimum, anyone aspiring to high office would certainly need authenticity of a pure blood line.

 

[Flopper]

Here is the intent of the 14th amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

An "anchor baby" is like someone breaking into your house, birthing a child, and then forcing you to care for the child. Then, while you care for the child, the birth mother comes along and says you can't separate her from her child, so you must care for her, too. Plus the other "family" so attached to the new child.

We must wake up and quit quibbling over words. Do what's right, not what some lawyer try to say is right through their convoluted logic and abuse of the English language.

Those words in the constitution happen to be the basis for our laws. They are worth quibbling about.

 

[Spare_change]

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.

Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.

As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.

Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.

You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?

Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.

The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....

and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?

I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything

If you bothered to actually read what comes up on your computer, you would see that, in the very next post, I gave you a myriad of references. But, you continue to make my point ... your goal is to feed your ego, rather than learn something. i think you need to look at your motivation ... are you here to learn, and to discuss, or are you here to try to give some meaning to your life, feed your ego, or bully people?

 

[80zephyr]

Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.

Mark

That opinion and 2 bucks will get your buck of coffee.

The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.

Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?

After all, didn't they also have legal training?

Mark

You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.

The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'

Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.

Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

Mark

Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.

And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.

If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.

We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was never intended by its author (Jacob Howard), to give citizenship to foreigners, just because the parents came here before they were born (to acquire a lifetime of benefits at US taxpayer expense, from the birth of that child on the US side of the border).
Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That may have been the author's intent but was that the intent of US Congress and the states that approved the amendment? There is no way of knowing. So we are left with what is in the constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the citizenship clause to the birth of children of illegal immigrants in the US, it would seems unlikely that they would narrow the scope of the clause.based on a claim of jurisdiction.

If it did happen, just think of the paperwork. Any or every birth could require research as to the citizenship status of its parents. Since many people are still in denial about the President’s birthplace, one can only imagine how complicated this could get in terms of DNA and document authentication. At a minimum, anyone aspiring to high office would certainly need authenticity of a pure blood line.

Amazing ennit, that we can track every cow in America, and yet the paperwork suddenly becomes to much of a burden to prove citizenship?

Mark

 

[Oldglory1]

The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?

Mark

From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.

Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats.

So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.

Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Aliens and foreigners were mentioned. That's all you need to know. It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.

 

[Syriusly]

From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.

Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats.

So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.

Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Aliens and foreigners were mentioned. That's all you need to know. It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.

A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.

An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

That opinion and 2 bucks will get your buck of coffee.

The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.

Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?

After all, didn't they also have legal training?

Mark

You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.

The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'

Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.

Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

Mark

Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.

And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.

If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.

We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.

Mark

Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.

 

[Oldglory1]

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.

Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.

As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.

Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.

You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?

Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.

The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....

and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?

I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything

Anyone who claims that the tea party members collectively are crazy (and they aren't baggers) is not someone I would place any credibility on.