I'm not aware of the term "in(un)alienable rights" being in the constitution, Gid. As for the declaration, those rights include "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Feel free to set those down in some legally defined form for me. No doubt some people consider gay marriage to fit in there with "happiness", too, and yet you don't consider it a right.



And those limits have been amended and re-amended. Feel free to point out the list of things we can't limit through an amendment to the constitution. You can settle this by just listing those things that are specifically ensured regardless of the will of the people.

I figure you'll point to the first couple of amendments, which isn't really valid, since we know we can repeal amendments, we've done it before. That's not saying we ever would, but you're saying we CAN'T, which is a very different thing. According to you, the courts can veto anything we want to pass, no matter how large the majority, so long as they consider it an unalienable right.

So basically, own the courts, rule the nation. The will of the people is secondary.

I see you chose to rather call me ignorant as oppose to answering my question. I asked specifically about those who can't not those who can but chose not to. This is the problem going on around here, your dodging questions by stating something that was not asked. Sorry to say this but that is something I would normally expect from Col.



Not according to how you put it, as far as you say we are lucky to be Americans while at the same time we have to earn it. How can you be born an American and then have to earn it. I thought earning means getting something you did not have before. Being American is not like getting an A in school the first day of school and all you have to do is maintain it by working hard and learning.

I was responding to you saying: "The odds of someone being born and raised here no knowing the language would be a first for me." As for stripping the citizenship of retarded kids, I chose to overlook an idiotic question. If you'd take the time to read you'd realize I'm not promoting stripping anyone's citizenship. You and Sean are just so anxious to be pissed off that you can't see past your nose.

I'm asking why if these are the standards to be "American", why you allow people who aren't up to those standards to be "American". You guys just want to address this as if I am talking about sending people out on boats. I'm saying that if you turn that mirror toward the nation as a whole there's no reason why you shouldn't be setting people out on boats.

Not that any of that matters. Whatever makes you feel righteous and indignant. The whole point of this blog seems to be how awful it is to misuse the word "American". I'm wondering how you can water it down much more than it already is.

Meh, pointless. To sum up for the last time, there is nothing but horror when someone refers to an illegal alien who has lived and worked here for years as an "American". Yet, you can see it right here, if you question taking that status away from, say, a child murderer, again, more indignation for being the "thought police".

In the end it is the WASP country club mentality, that god forbid we let the unwashed in to rub elbows with our members. Members who are often ignorant non-contributers, and who sometimes commit horrific crimes, but no matter how little they fit the entrance requirements should evidently never have their membership stripped from them. If that's a hypocrisy that you can support, fine, I can't.

Vent, misrepresent, etc., whatever you like. I'm done responding. If you guys can't read deeper than "HE WANTS TO DEPORT CHILDREN!!!" there's no point in talking to you at all.

I know I come late to the party, but what the hell...





Only the Smug One would argue on the premise that legal immigration and illegal immigration are the same thing, using a quote that says absolutely the opposite of what he implies, there for all of us to read, apparently thinking no one would notice. He's becoming quite adept at the non-sequitur rejoinder. Same with the pandering jibe - pandering to legal citizens is in his mind the same as trying to legislatively create another huge, beholdin' voting bloc guaranteed to get you back in the majority (for at least awhile). It is a sign of the desperation and hollowness of the Democrat Party that they believe the only way they can return to power is by appealing to non-citizens, not the people they would be elected to serve, should they win. They've always been more subtle about illegal voting & ballot-stuffing - this is just out there in the wide open, a vote-grab of monumental proportions, about which they have no shame at all (not that George isn't pandering to that bloc now - he just wasn't in 2000).

Wow, I'm impressed that I created an article that would get this many responses.

Self-congratulation is a form of masturbation, you know.   

"giving himself a hand?" so to speak...  

Tell me something I don't know. LOL.



Hey, it beats no hands at all.