Instead of deflecting answer the question.  Should someone be able to give birth in the US, and return the child to their own country with all the privileges of US citizenship including voting for the president?  Almost no other countries allow this because it is completely insane.  Regardless of how many millions of people you think Biden allowed into the country, all their children born here will be US citizens.  Biden's unlawful conduct created a crisis that brought this to a head.

I'm not deflecting anything. The 14^th Amendment has been very clear for 150+ years.
What is incredible is, 3 that went directly against the Constitution to serve their master.

"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."

Not only are you uninformed, you obviously didn't even read my original post. Par for the course. 

LOL.  You start a silly topic on ghosts by writing a book and then insult the only two posters who respond.  Your posts are so long you should write a book on the topic.  You must really enjoy hearing yourself talk.  I won't make the mistake again. 

The scientist would use the evidence to test the theory.   In this case you are using the theory to test the evidence. If the evidence doesn’t fit the theory you reject the evidence.  And it is not just Tague’s evidence. What is remarkable is that no one thinks this is a problem except me (and most of the CTers, except when it applies to their own theories).
So if the road had deflected the fragment leaving nothing that anyone observed you would be arguing that theory... hmm.

I love being lectured on the scientific method by a guy who has arrived at one of the goofiest scenarios ever concocted.

Really? I wonder aloud again if you suffer from bouts of amnesia. Go back and read our exchanges about when Connally was hit.

And, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a bullet whose impact Connally said felt like someone pounded him hard with their fist would have caused "JBC flipping his arm upward at Z226" but would not have driven his shoulder downward, would not have caused his cheeks to puff, and would not have caused a pained expression to appear on his face until Z238, when we know from forensic science that the pained expression alone would have occurred no more than 250 milliseconds after the moment of impact.

Of course, it's interesting and telling that Connally himself, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which dovetails perfectly with what forensic science tell us about how long it would have taken for his shoulder to be driven downward, for the air forced from his lungs to cause his cheeks to puff, and for a pained expression to appear on his face.

But you guys have to ignore this plain, obvious evidence because it destroys your SBT fantasy.

It wasn't a dodge. McAdams would constantly repeat claims that had been thoroughly answered, just as you and other WC believers do here all the time.

It's funny how you cite Wecht when you like what he said, which is rarely, but then you turn around and trash him the rest of the time.

I have great respect for Cyril Wecht's professional credentials and his opinion regarding the medical evidence. He concurred with the FPP finding that JFK was shot twice from behind. His disagreement with the FPP consensus was not based on his area of expertise. He disputed the SBT because he thought the geometry was impossible which it would be if JBC and been directly in front of JFK and facing straight ahead and at the same level. None of those are true. His belief in a frontal shot to the head was not based on his medical expertise but on his viewing of the Z-film. He was entitled to his opinion on that but that is not his area of expertise. I read yesterday that in his career Cyril Wecht had participated in over 17,000 autopsies. In how many of those do you suppose he was aided by a film of the murder. I'd be surprised if the number was > 0.

Anyway, you obviously don't know that Dr. Wecht changed his mind about pre-autopsy surgery once he read Horne's research and discussed the matter with Horne and Mantik. In fact, Dr. Wecht strongly endorsed Dr. Mantik's 2014 book JFK's Head Wounds, which, among many other things, lays out the essentials of the evidence for pre-autopsy surgery.

Cite Wecht endorsing either Horne or Lifton's goofy theory. In every comment I've read from Wecht, he adamantly dismissed it. 

It's worth repeating for the sake of our readers that you have such a poor handle on JFKA research that just a few weeks ago you erroneously claimed that Dr. Wecht concurred with all but one of the FPP's major conclusions. This statement proves you had not even read his FPP dissent.

I notice you ignored the point that mortician Tom Robinson saw Humes sawing on the skull and that Robinson specified that the damage to the top of the skull was done by the autopsy doctors. None of the medical technicians at the autopsy recalled seeing this, because Robinson arrived before the autopsy began and because the med techs had not arrived yet.

I am not obligated to comment on every silly issue your raise. I could spend an afternoon replying to every silly statement you make in your long-winded diatribes.

Why do you suppose Humes suspiciously asked aloud, during the autopsy, if there had been surgery done to the head in Dallas?

I don't suppose. If you want to know the answer to that, you'd have to ask Humes.

Before you blunder and embarrass yourself again, you might, just this once, just for once, want to read some of the research that's been done on this issue before you comment on it again. The following article is a good introduction on the subject:

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/dominick-armentanos-fallacious-disagreement-with-doug-hornes-new-jfk-documentary/ 

The article was written by Jacob Hornberger, who holds degrees in economics and law, is a former university professor, and is now the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

I see you're predictably trying to dismiss Doug Horne's historic research on this issue

Historically goofy and hilarious

by claiming that anyone who posits pre-autopsy surgery should not be taken seriously.

Yeah, pretty much.

Yeah, never mind that Horne was the Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB, that he took part in nearly all of the ARRB's historic interviews with the autopsy witnesses, and that he holds a degree in history.

No medical training whatsoever.

Unlike you, Washington Post editor George Lardner was impressed with Horne's research and even found Horne's evidence that the autopsy brain photos do not show JFK's brain to be credible:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/11/10/archive-photos-not-of-jfks-brain-concludes-aide-to-review-board/53b0858e-d0ed-4d9c-9d30-eda5ae71a84a/

Is that supposed to make Horne's rehash of David Lifton's goofy idea more credible? It didn't work.

It is amusing that you so fervently dismiss the idea of pre-autopsy surgery, without having read any of the research that supports it, and then you turn around and defend the preposterous SBT, a ludicrous theory (1) that has been refuted by every single wound ballistics test that was intended to duplicate it, and (2) that was definitively debunked by the 2023 Knott Laboratory SBT trajectory analysis, the most sophisticated and data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done.

Phew! This nonsense is further proof that you have no business pretending to know enough about the JFK case to comment on it. The forum needs to create a sub-forum for people who know little about the case and who want to learn more. That's where you belong.

Now, no, it is certainly not "absolutely ridiculous" to think that a bullet could have only penetrated a few inches into Kennedy's back. The bullet could have been a squib load, i.e., a bullet with a defective cartridge that contained too little gunpowder. This would explain why so many witnesses said one of the shots sounded different than the others.

It is unfortunate that you routinely use adamant verbiage when making erroneous claims. You keep pretending that you have enough knowledge to be making categorical assertions, when you have no business doing so.

I notice you didn't say one word about the disclosed evidence that the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty that the back wound had no exit point, that they even probed the wound after removing the chest organs, and that the pathologists and the other men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. BTW, this is the same thing that medical technician James Jenkins stated in a recorded interview in the 1970s.

I notice you said nothing about the fact that we know from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session alone that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound as any kind of exit point. The other draft said that a fragment from the head shot caused the throat wound and said nothing about any exit point for the back wound.

The ARRB materials shed historic light on this vital disclosure by revealing that the autopsy doctors, along with the medical technicians and others who were near the autopsy table, could see with their own eyes that the back wound had no exit point.

These facts have been known since the late 1990s, but you guys have refused to face them and are still peddling the SBT myth.

The [Bible is] where to steer anyone who wants to know the truth of [reality] without having the waters muddied by a bunch of nonsensical [history and science] crap.

See how that works? Religious zealots are all the same, even if their religion is the LN narrative or Harvey and Lee. 

There's a fundamental difference between the Bible and the WCR. One is faith based and one is based on evidence.