Wong Kim Ark case is not relevant here.
Although the court used the term "natural born citizen," that was NOT the issue before the court.
Wong was not running for POTUS.
The issure regarding POTUS will have to be tried in the SCOTUS.
It never has, so far.
What is the right time to play that card?
Oh, you mean the Trump Card?
After she is the official nominee, but also after it is too late for them to change.
A good time would be during the Trump-Harris debate.
Remember: Trump knows ALL ABOUT this law, which is why he was challenging Barry a few years ago.
I was watching some legal stuff on a similar but slightly different thing.
The point was made that the 14th Amendment says "All person 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."
What -- EXACTLY -- does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?
Turns out, it means absolute, and 100% subject, with NO OTHER AUTHORITY.
If an American visits France, is the American subject to the jurisdiction of the US and also of France?
Yes.
This means that the anchor baby stuff is a violation of the Constitution.
Those people are NOT US citizens just becuase they were born within the 50 states.
Their parents are citizens of another country, which means the parents and the child, both, are NOT subject to the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the US.
So, anchor baby "policy" (it is not a law) must go.
Obviously if Kackle Heels Up is not even a US citizen, she cannot be a Natural Born Citizen, either, and is therefore ineligible for Prez or V-Prez.
In that context the OT was used to prove that man could never uphold to the law.
I see it a little differently. It's not that man could not uphold the Law, but rather that man did not, in many cases. But those who did, such as Abraham, were rewarded.
Later in the NT, Jesus says that those who uphold the Law will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven, and those who do not will be among the least.
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 5:19
We are no longer bound by the law.
Again, not so. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. He came to lead the way to show how to live by the Law (since so many were failing).
I would argue that God's people were not following the Law very well, so He wiped most of them out and had Noah do a re-start. Later, many were still not following along, so He chose Abraham to receive the special promise, and another re-start within Abraham's family tree (from which the Israelites came). Later still, many were still not following, so He sent Moses to write it all down. And then it still wasn't going the way He wanted, so He came to Earth in human form, as Jesus, for the purpose of satisfying the Law (OT) regarding the death penalty for so many sins, and re-starting by allowing His people to continue without those severe penalties hanging over their heads, and to appoint certain individuals to lead a movement (the Church), so that there could be brotherhood in pursuing the Law.
But the Law remains, modified by eliminating the death penalty, which has been served.
He was merely pointing out that Moses had allowed it because their hearts were hardened; but that was never the intention. Again this is the theme repeated over and over all throughout OT.
Of course, it was not Moses who allowed it, but rather God who did. Jesus was just using that language to communicate this message.
What is more important here? Your vows before God, or saving 200k? When you put it in that light I think you have your answer.
My answer would be the God would not want people to go bankrupt due to the laws that men have put into place, just because someone got sick.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. But Caesar is a nasty mofo when he has his hand out to grab your assets.
If Caesar created the rules about who has to pay taxes, who has to drain assets, who has to pay medical bills, who is "allowed" to be married or divorced, then Caesar long ago stepped out of bounds.
Fun video, however the creator has things VERY wrong. The jews did not descend from Judah.
That would have made Jesus a jew, which he was not.
The jews come from Esau, whose name was changed to Edom. His race mixing with the Canaanites and other tribes created the Edomites.
The Jewish Encyclopedia admits that the jews are the Edomites of the Bible, and not the Israelites. But they keep that a secret, probably even from most of their own people. But it is right there in the Jewish Encyclopedia (like most people, most jews don't read these types of books, either).
Judah was a son of Israel, making him an Israelite. There is ZERO way that Judah could ever be a jew, since none of his ancestors were jews.
The word "jew" was not even in the Bible until a few hundred years ago:
Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.
The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" did not appear in it.
The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word "Jew" did not appear in it either. The word "Jew" appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times.
Countless copies of the revised 18th century editions of the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament into English were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. They did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" nor did they care. They accepted the English word "Jew" as the only and as the accepted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios." How could they be expected to have known otherwise? The answer is they could not and they did not. It was a new English word to them.
The translation into English of the Gospel by John, XIX.19, from the Greek in which it was originally written reads "Do not inscribe 'the monarch of the Judeans' but that He Himself said 'I am monarch.'" In the original Greek manuscript the Greek "basileus" appears for "monarch" in the English and the Greek "Ioudaios" appears for "Judeans" in the English. "Ioudaia" in Greek is "Judea" in English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judeans" in English. There is no reason for any confusion.
If the generally accepted understanding today of the English "Jew" and "Judean" conveyed the identical implications, inferences and innuendoes as both rightly should, it would make no difference which of these two words was used when referring to Jesus in the New Testament or elsewhere. But the implications, inferences, and innuendoes today conveyed by these two words are as different as black is from white. The word "Jew" today is never regarded as a synonym for "Judean" nor is "Judean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew."
When the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean." However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew." It is a misrepresentation
In the Bible the word "Jew" means a resident of the land of Judaea regardless of their tribe, race or religion just as an Australian or Englishman may in fact be a Chinese, Negro or an Eskimo, or perhaps a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite).
http://www.wicwiki.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php/The_Etymology_of_the_Word_%22Jew%22
In the New Testament, Jesus was born AFTER the return of some of the people and their descendants who had been captured and held in Babylon. By this time in history, that area that had once been the Kingdom of Judah was now occupied and controlled by the Roman Empire. It was now the Roman province called Judea.
SOME of those people were descendants of Judah, and were true Israelites. But MOST of the people were not. The majority were Edomites (true jews), and others.
It was a "diverse society," just as we see today in White societies.
This is why Jesus spoke differently to the "multitudes" (a group of people, some of whom were NOT His people) than he did to His disciples.
The original scriptures used the word "Judeans" because the Edomites were pretending to be of the Israelites. They were doing things that they THOUGHT would "make them Israelites" or make others think so, such as circumcision, which was originally a Hebrew thing, not a jewish thing.
Over time, they infiltrated Christianity, claiming that they were experts in the Hebrew language, so they should be the translators. In this capacity, they gradually changed the meanings of important words when translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin and eventually into other languages.
So, the video is cleverly done, but the creator has Judah as a jew and that is NOT correct. That makes the rest of his version of history largely false.
Exactly why Jesus was NOT a jew:
Tough one b/c the Bible is pretty clear about divorce
Actually, it isn't.
In the OT, God has a set of laws regarding divorce. So, it is clearly allowed.
In the NT, Christ says it is not the preferred thing to do, but sometimes necessary.
Nothing in the Bible says it is sinful to get divorced. Any church doctrine that says otherwise is merely a false teaching that was conjured up by mortal men, and not what the Bible says.
Still, it is not ideal, so can be considered a dilemma for many.
This is true, however there are 7 or 8 states that "recognize common law marriage," while the rest do not.
For states that do, if you meet their definition (living together for some period of time, telling others that you are married, etc.), then the state makes an assumption that you are married, and will treat you as such, even though you never wanted that contract with the state.
The states that do not recognize it just treat you as shacking up and not married. That's a better situation because the state won't drag its ugly self into the marriage.
I don't know the answer to the question, but I have always thought that this scene was FBI assets, and filmed at a different time than the protestors waltzing through the Capitol building.
This is one of the reasons why the J6 video tapes have never been shown to the public.
A "born again believer" is NOT an ethnicity.
An ethnicity is genealogical, not simply a belief.
It has to do with genetic family tree.
Jews of today and of the past are not, and never were, the Israelites of the Bible.
They are a different family tree, not the Israelite one.
Besides that, NONE of them believe in the Christian God.
Their Talmud is all about how to get AROUND the Torah, not how to follow it.
Yes, deception of that sort is built into them, genetically.
Some try to fight against their nature, since they live in a mostly Christian society.
These are the cryptojews, but are still jews, ethnically.
In the Hebrew language, the word "Satan" means "Adversary." It is not a little red guy with horns and a pitchfork. It is the adversary of the Israelite people.
In all of history, who has been more adversarial against the White race than the jews? Nobody. Their treachery continues today.
Now, they want to install one of theirs into the presidency.
The jews ARE the "anti-Christ," since they are adversaries of Christ.
A jewish anti-Christ as President, in a country of Christians?
Of course, they would try it.
This is why the PA governor is now getting play in the jewish-controlled media. They want /theirguy/ in, just to stick it to the Christians, all the more.
We shall see how that goes.
Fortunately, the US president is not a king; he is a servant.
I don't see it as a purely secular thing.
Sure, it can be viewed that way, but there is nothing in the Bible about getting a marriage license (i.e. permission) from the government. There also is nothing about a church ceremony, wedding ring, wedding dress, wedding cake, etc.
All of those things are fine to do, and none are a violation of biblical principles, but those are all optional.
Biblical marriage, if you look at the examples given, is merely (a) agreement to be married, and (b) consumation of that agreement.
It is no different than a typical contract, verbal or written, where an agreement is made, and then a handshake and/or signature symbolizes that the agreement was, in fact, made.
Government has made itself the default contract, when it has no business being that. The "marriage license" was not even a thing until about 100 years ago. The Founding Fathers certainly did not bother with that nonsense.
Crowdstrike Falcon pushed updates directly from the cloud to local computers - which is bat shit crazy from a security/reliability perspective.
I wonder if Crowdstrike hiring policies, and the people they have attracted to their company due to such policies, had anything to do with it:
"CrowdStrike is an advocate for diversity and equal employment opportunities. To enhance our culture as we grow, we offer unconscious bias training for recruiters and hiring managers with the goal of helping our people be more inclusive managers, run inclusive meetings and be thoughtful of inclusivity in everyday process and practice."
https://www.crowdstrike.com/about/environmental-social-governance/diversity-equity-inclusion/
Complete separation of marriage and state.
People can just enter into contracts between themselves, similar to a prenup or cohabitation agreement rather than using the government's default contract, which makes the government a party to the marriage, and a right to the "fruits of the marriage," which is how they steal children and property.
Imagine a funeral for FJB to cap it all off.