Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[danielpalos]

Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligently designed, Inception.

That's not the way it was interpreted in the earliest Court decisions.

Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, only whites were allowed to be citizens and, according to most, if not all early state Constitutions, only white Christians were allowed to vote and / or hold public office.

Slavery was the issue. gender and based race laws should be considered unconstitutional.

I support reparations. You see, the black people lay claim to being the people who held biblical Israelites in bondage. So, we had slavery in the U.S. for 200 or so years. My ancestors were held in bondage for over 400 years. I am a Christian Israelite. So, when the black people get their reparations, they can deposit the check, double that amount and send it to biblical Israelites. Then we can move forward.

lousy right wing management?

Eminent domain should have solved that issue in a market friendly manner.

Lousy right wing management???

States lost their former States right over immigration in favor of the general government and entry into the Union after 1808.

All Persons born in the US after that were natural born citizens.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That's not the way it was interpreted in the earliest Court decisions.

Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, only whites were allowed to be citizens and, according to most, if not all early state Constitutions, only white Christians were allowed to vote and / or hold public office.

Slavery was the issue. gender and based race laws should be considered unconstitutional.

I support reparations. You see, the black people lay claim to being the people who held biblical Israelites in bondage. So, we had slavery in the U.S. for 200 or so years. My ancestors were held in bondage for over 400 years. I am a Christian Israelite. So, when the black people get their reparations, they can deposit the check, double that amount and send it to biblical Israelites. Then we can move forward.

lousy right wing management?

Eminent domain should have solved that issue in a market friendly manner.

Lousy right wing management???

States lost their former States right over immigration in favor of the general government and entry into the Union after 1808.

All Persons born in the US after that were natural born citizens.

We dispelled that myth a long time back danielpalos. You are now making a right wing argument. One of those right wing, build the wall guys tried that maneuver. I finally had to close him down with the facts. I can do it for you as well This was my response to the build the wall guy:

You have been provided with walls of text wherein I've backed up the claims. Unless you are going to pay me for research time, you are not due any legal brief for free.

If you insist on me making an ass out of you, I will give you a free sample. Then you can kiss my ass and then stand down.

Let us revisit post # 4242. You wrote:

"There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight [ 1808 ].

The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 was in 1875.

HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?

Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong."

ME: I don't owe you any free research; don't have to prove squat and am not your push button monkey. It was not my intent to take sides; I was looking for the OP's standards that would allow us to define the terminology "wrong" so we'd be on the same page. Build the wall freaks have made a religion out of a subject they don't understand. You are one the most misguided, so here is your

RESPONSE:

I told you BEFORE and AFTER post # 4242 mentioned above that it was a tax issue and had NOTHING to do with immigration. So, here we go:

"Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Explanation: This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.

What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

Also see this:

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

Bone up on your U.S. history Einstein. Your cite has nothing to do with immigration.

It is still an irrefutable FACT that between 1808 and 1875 the states decided who came and went within their states. It is an irrefutable FACTthat:

"The House and Senate agreed on a bill, approved on March 2, 1807, called An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight.The bound measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law on March 2, 1807."

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

In 1875, in the Chy Lung decision the SCOTUS gave to Congress a power they do not have in the Constitution. That was legislating from the bench. Odd how the SCOTUS waited until all the original founders AND the Supreme Court Justices were dead and gone before presuming to give Congress ANY power to do a damn thing.

* The fact is the word immigration is not in the Constitution
* The fact is, despite only whites being able to become citizens after the ratification of the Constitution, MILLIONS of non-whites still came to the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered
* The fact is, our Constitution specifically states that the Tenth Amendment provides:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The fact is since Congress has no authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY kind of power, most of the statutes you hide behind are illegal

The fact is, we have at least TWO separate and distinct governments operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption. One is the lawful / legal / constitutional / de jure Republic guaranteed in Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution. The OTHER government is an illegal / de facto / Federal -Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.

The fact is, when you tell that illegal government they have over-stepped their authority, they are going to rule against you. Most people who own a firearm and watch that illegal government take a giant dump on the Second Amendment can tell you horror stories about how the unconstitutional nature of the gun laws in America.

Despite how much you hate people from south of the border, and for whatever reason, the bottom line is, they either have inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, and irrevocable Rights or they don't. If your contention is that they don't have Rights, you would shoot them in the streets because you don't think they have Rights. Either they do or they do not. If they don't, then you can shoot them any time you get tired of being a bloviating blowhard.

But, you won't. It's because they do have Rights. And if they have a Right to Life, they damn well have a Right to Liberty. Those are unalienable Rights that the founders intended to be above the law.

Your problem is that you are so hung up on wall worship, you don't understand that most Americans WILLINGLY invite the foreigners here. Does it cause us problems? YES. But, you cannot improve your lot in life violating the original intent of the Constitution. You cannot resolve the issue by attacking the Rights of others. At some point you have to get off your high horse and realize that are people in this world that have just as much experience as you do. I've only taken ONE of your examples to show that you're wrong. How much more of an ass whipping do you want to take before realizing that maybe there are better options to be put on the table?

See post 4161 too

 

[danielpalos]

Clearly, all persons born in the US after 1808 were natural born citizens. States have no authority to declare otherwise.

 

[Slyhunter]

I've changed my mind on the wall. Don't build it. Get rid of the incentives for migrants to come to America illegally.
Get rid of welfare. Fine and/or jail those who hire illegals. Forbid them access into our schools. Fine states who give them in-state tuition and/or medicare. Lets make it impossible for a illegal to survive in America.

 

[Slyhunter]

I'd prefer the wall but I've given up on it.

However,

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Clearly, all persons born in the US after 1808 were natural born citizens. States have no authority to declare otherwise.

It was not the states that decided who were citizens. the federal government made no official ruling until 1857 in the Dred Scott case. So, the Dred Scott decision covered the time period of 1808 through 1857.

The 14th Amendment (which was illegally ratified) ended the debate.

 

[danielpalos]

Clearly, all persons born in the US after 1808 were natural born citizens. States have no authority to declare otherwise.

It was not the states that decided who were citizens. the federal government made no official ruling until 1857 in the Dred Scott case. So, the Dred Scott decision covered the time period of 1808 through 1857.

The 14th Amendment (which was illegally ratified) ended the debate.

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808. The States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808. Anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen by birth.

 

[Conservative65]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?

 

[danielpalos]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?

we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.

 

[Conservative65]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?

we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.

The current system for allowing people in legally is fine. Minimum wage shouldn't exist.

 

[danielpalos]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?

we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.

The current system for allowing people in legally is fine. Minimum wage shouldn't exist.

we may need a counselor. any suggestions?

why do you believe a minimum wage should not exist? and, can you find an express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.

 

[Conservative65]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?

we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.

The current system for allowing people in legally is fine. Minimum wage shouldn't exist.

we may need a counselor. any suggestions?

why do you believe a minimum wage should not exist? and, can you find an express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.

No counselor needed.

Not the government's place to tell a business that does the paying how much someone's labor is worth.

Can you show me how someone can naturalize without first being an immigrant?

Can you show me where the federal government has any delegated authority in the Constitution to make a business pay someone a minimum amount? Someone should be ashamed if the only wage they can earn is the minimum.

 

[danielpalos]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?

we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.

The current system for allowing people in legally is fine. Minimum wage shouldn't exist.

we may need a counselor. any suggestions?

why do you believe a minimum wage should not exist? and, can you find an express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.

No counselor needed.

Not the government's place to tell a business that does the paying how much someone's labor is worth.

Can you show me how someone can naturalize without first being an immigrant?

Can you show me where the federal government has any delegated authority in the Constitution to make a business pay someone a minimum amount? Someone should be ashamed if the only wage they can earn is the minimum.

Why do you believe it is not our federal Government's business to regulate Commerce.

 

[Conservative65]

You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?

we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.

The current system for allowing people in legally is fine. Minimum wage shouldn't exist.

we may need a counselor. any suggestions?

why do you believe a minimum wage should not exist? and, can you find an express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.

No counselor needed.

Not the government's place to tell a business that does the paying how much someone's labor is worth.

Can you show me how someone can naturalize without first being an immigrant?

Can you show me where the federal government has any delegated authority in the Constitution to make a business pay someone a minimum amount? Someone should be ashamed if the only wage they can earn is the minimum.

Why do you believe it is not our federal Government's business to regulate Commerce.

Moving the goalposts, huh?

 

[danielpalos]

Regulating Commerce includes labor input.

 

[LilOlLady]

Trump needs to take all the stray dogs and train them to attack illegals and put them on the border to secure the border. CBP canine teams assist local law enforcement can assist border patrols. Just saying. ...

 

[Slyhunter]

why should we believe the right wing is serious about natural rights, in abortion threads.

This isn't an abortion thread.

 

[dblack]

why should we believe the right wing is serious about natural rights, in abortion threads.

This isn't an abortion thread.

It is now.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You cannot separate the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, etc. from the wall. The cost of the wall is immaterial - UNLESS you're agreeing with me that once the liberals get back in power, the wall would just be an eyesore covered in graffiti and be a symbol of the stupidity of modern Americans.

Trying to tie the build the wall guys is like trying go grip a handful of slime. All the manpower, maintenance, uniforms, firearms, etc. are all a part of this equation. Don't you recall in 2013 how the DHS bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition?

You're so blinded by the wall, you can't see the forest for the wall.

You are full of it..........I've been putting the data all over threads on the aspects of this............I asked for clarity on the Trillions.......where is it.......

Your posts with endless ellipsis are idiotic and look like the ravings of a freaking lunatic. Try reading the posts. The higher dollar items are listed for you.

The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security which oversees "border security" has a budget of $40.6 BILLION DOLLARS a year. That department is 17 years old. A quick swag tells me that in 24 years DHS will spend a TRILLION DOLLARS. In 8 more years, that agency ALONE will have cost a TRILLION DOLLARS.

Ah, yes, we see your objection now. A lot of that money is being spent on things OTHER THAN border security at the southern border, but the lion's share is being invested in the place where the build the wall guys worship. And that is just ONE AGENCY.

So, what exactly, is your point or do you even have one? Complete sentences in English appreciated.

That is 974.4 Billion in 24 years..........Is your calculator broken...........That hasn't reached a Trillion yet.............You said TRILLIONS.......PLURAL.......then didn't specify from what........and their entire budget takes 25 years to reach a TRILLION............singular..........

So you don't CLARIFY your TRILLIONS REMARK......and then try to back it up with today's numbers.......which are higher than previous years.....and then can't even use a calculator to know how many years at that amount makes the 1st Trillion

Did you drop out of school.

If your asking him to take the time to back up his responses with resources, links to figures, and actual evidence to prove that his information is accurate, you’re going to be in for a very ... very long wait. You’re talking about someone who says he’s prepped 250 cases but cant be bothered with simple research. Don’t be surprised if he only bloviates, provides none of the linked resource evidence you only BEEN asking for the last 3 responses, yet thinks everyone else is the idiot.

Just watch.

You have been provided with walls of text wherein I've backed up the claims. Unless you are going to pay me for research time, you are not due any legal brief for free.

If you insist on me making an ass out of you, I will give you a free sample. Then you can kiss my ass and then stand down.

Let us revisit post # 4242. You wrote:

"There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight [ 1808 ].

The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 was in 1875.

HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?

Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong."

ME: I don't owe you any free research; don't have to prove squat and am not your push button monkey. It was not my intent to take sides; I was looking for the OP's standards that would allow us to define the terminology "wrong" so we'd be on the same page. Build the wall freaks have made a religion out of a subject they don't understand. You are one the most misguided, so here is your

RESPONSE:

I told you BEFORE and AFTER post # 4242 mentioned above that it was a tax issue and had NOTHING to do with immigration. So, here we go:

"Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Explanation: This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.

What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

Also see this:

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

Bone up on your U.S. history Einstein. Your cite has nothing to do with immigration.

It is still an irrefutable FACT that between 1808 and 1875 the states decided who came and went within their states. It is an irrefutable FACT that:

"The House and Senate agreed on a bill, approved on March 2, 1807, called An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight. The bound measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law on March 2, 1807."

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

In 1875, in the Chy Lung decision the SCOTUS gave to Congress a power they do not have in the Constitution. That was legislating from the bench. Odd how the SCOTUS waited until all the original founders AND the Supreme Court Justices were dead and gone before presuming to give Congress ANY power to do a damn thing.

* The fact is the word immigration is not in the Constitution
* The fact is, despite only whites being able to become citizens after the ratification of the Constitution, MILLIONS of non-whites still came to the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered
* The fact is, our Constitution specifically states that the Tenth Amendment provides:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The fact is since Congress has no authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY kind of power, most of the statutes you hide behind are illegal

The fact is, we have at least TWO separate and distinct governments operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption. One is the lawful / legal / constitutional / de jure Republic guaranteed in Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution. The OTHER government is an illegal / de facto / Federal -Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.

The fact is, when you tell that illegal government they have over-stepped their authority, they are going to rule against you. Most people who own a firearm and watch that illegal government take a giant dump on the Second Amendment can tell you horror stories about how the unconstitutional nature of the gun laws in America.

Despite how much you hate people from south of the border, and for whatever reason, the bottom line is, they either have inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, and irrevocable Rights or they don't. If your contention is that they don't have Rights, you would shoot them in the streets because you don't think they have Rights. Either they do or they do not. If they don't, then you can shoot them any time you get tired of being a bloviating blowhard.

But, you won't. It's because they do have Rights. And if they have a Right to Life, they damn well have a Right to Liberty. Those are unalienable Rights that the founders intended to be above the law.

Your problem is that you are so hung up on wall worship, you don't understand that most Americans WILLINGLY invite the foreigners here. Does it cause us problems? YES. But, you cannot improve your lot in life violating the original intent of the Constitution. You cannot resolve the issue by attacking the Rights of others. At some point you have to get off your high horse and realize that are people in this world that have just as much experience as you do. I've only taken ONE of your examples to show that you're wrong. How much more of an ass whipping do you want to take before realizing that maybe there are better options to be put on the table?

This Article below makes no mention of the word “slave” or “slavery” anywhere in the Amendment. There is your FACT.


Article I

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.


It does speak however in addressing each state admitting foreigners, and the migration of such in the United States. As listed below, the Founders DID have a lot to say regarding the migration and the entry of foreign immigrants into this country.


Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention as he ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, “though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.”

SOURCE: Madison Debates, August 9, 1787


The principles of the American Founding conferred a right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake of assume that the principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved. Return to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all SHALL BE GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.”

Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality. —- If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals. The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.

A person who is denied entrance into a country is not denied any inherent natural right. He is perfectly free to go elsewhere, or even to form his own political community, and to take any necessary and proper measures to secure his own rights.


During the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin expressed great concern regarding the massive influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania. Franklin laments that Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”

SOURCE: Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445


Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred. He told his Vice President that “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

SOURCE: Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23.




“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

“If the rights of naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of the intention of the candidates to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term. To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

SOURCE: Alexander Hamilton (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904).




Meanwhile all this vast knowledge you have, all this experience of prepping 250 court cases, those resources you can’t offer for free... can be summed up through what you read in Wikipedia. That’s it?

Exactly how much “legal experience” and how much Constitutional background do you think that website carries behind their “basic and general” posts? Do you actually know what real research is? Obviously, from what I see here, it’s more of a quick 5 minute offering of “Cliff Notes” research behind all your talk of apparent vast “experience”.

 

[sparky]

~S~