ImaObserver

So 25 to 100 in one to three blocks?

Mormon Church Land Acres
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon church, owns more than 2.3 million acres of private land in the US, which accounts for approximately 1 in every 550 acres.
This makes them the second-largest landowner in the country.
In addition to this, the church owns significant amounts of land in specific states. For example, in Montana, the Mormon church owns 255,000 acres
, and in Nebraska, it owns about 370,000 acres of agricultural land.
The church also owns nearly 300,000 acres of land, 44,000 head of beef cattle, and maintains 90 rancher families on their ranch.
In Florida, the church owns approximately 672,834 acres of land, which accounts for almost 2% of the state’s land mass.

AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.

Just trying to earn a few bucks to help pay off his student loans for his Doctorate in Psychology from Harvard.

quote:

---

It’s literally the single most important decision to saving the future of this country.

---

Illegals are in violation of our laws by the nature of their entry. They are not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but rather are the citizens of their native lands. Illegal aliens are "foreigners" who cannot be called to jury duty or drafted into the U.S. military services. When these foreigners encounter adverse circumstances they are able to appeal to the consulates of their native countries for legal and financial assistance and regularly do so. Babies born to these foreigners are not citizens of the U.S.A. but rather of the nations of their parents. Those who are present in our country legally, eg if they are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and US law, would, by the 14th Amendment, have their babies given US citizenship.

"Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884).
In the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins case, the 14th Amendment phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."
In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." ? ?The citizenship question of American Indians was addressed and altered in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

"The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction with no foreign allegiance whatsoever. In other words, they must be United States citizens."

Many in quoting the 14th amendment conveniently forget to include the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Their disingenuity reveals that they are concerned about the effect of these few words on their contention. Granting citizenship to those born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents is a deliberate act of defiance of the law and may actually be treasonous.

Probably more like a circle jerk doggie fashion.

quote:

---

Peter meant to say the Mega Conglomerates like ADM, Cargill, and Koch

---

These and other such entities will continue to sell to China but the cargos will be consigned to other destinations before being "resold" by the original "purchaser" and the shipments redirected to China thru various devious manipulations. Maybe the vessel has to lay up for a couple of days in an intermediary port to make it look right on the books, but the cargo stays on board and is "resold" by that original "buyer" to avoid the politics.

Maybe just give yourself a pre-wash prior to pooping so that doesn't stick. :rolleyes:

Yup! Do you want to be one of the 99 guys gathered in a bunch to distract him or do you want to be the guy that sneaks up behind him and kicks him in the nuts to get his attention so the other 99 can charge in mass?

quote:

---

quote:
my emotional support animals
Pets. they are called pets.

---

Maybe his "Emotional Support Animals" moonlighted at Hooters. :lol:

They are not U. S. Citizens.
In the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins case, the 14th Amendment phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."
In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
"The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction with no foreign allegiance whatsoever. In other words, they must be United States citizens."
The citizenship question of American Indians was addressed and altered in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The logical thinking of the Court in ELK remains unaltered in spite of the fact that future legislation legalized Indians as citizens.