The Post and Email

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44468
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: The Post and Email

#10501

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:02 pm

Bullshit.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15623
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Post and Email

#10502

Post by Reality Check » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:51 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:02 pm
Bullshit.
Indeed. He is a serial liar and has overactive bowels. He spews it from both ends.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10503

Post by bob » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:48 am

P&E comment:
Kerchner wrote:Hamilton Nash: You said “Natural born and native born meant the same thing to the Founders.” That is not correct. The founders and framers considered the terms “natives” and “natural born Citizens” to be same thing. The term “natives” and “native born” are not identically the same thing. The treatise on Natural Law by Emer de Vattel was a key source of guidance and information for the founders and framers in creating our Constitutional Republic. Benjamin Franklin told us that. See Vattel’s writings about “natives” and “natural born citizen” in Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212: https://lonang.com/library/reference/va ... /vatt-119/ Vattel did not use the term “native born”. We in this debate should not conflate the term natives and native born as it will cause confusion and play into the hands of the misinformation far-left progressive movement crowd which wants to change the meaning of words and terms in our constitution. Just like the media and far left routinely conflates the term “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in their online and media debates re the constitutional eligibility of people like Obama, Cruz, Kamala Harris, and others: https://www.scribd.com/lists/22182725/S ... zen-of-U-S We cannot let the far left conflate the terms “natives” and “native born”. We cannot let far left keep getting away with manipulating language and conflating terms. They must be corrected whenever they try to do it, if possible. The writings of Vattel are very clear. And his treatise was widely read and used by the Founders and Framers. That is what should be quoted when mentioning what the founders and framers understood as to the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” or “natives”, which Vattel very clearly and explicitly defined right after he used those terms in section 212. He defined what he meant in the same sentence. All engaged in the “natural born Citizen” debate here and elsewhere should carefully read that section 212 again: https://lonang.com/library/reference/va ... /vatt-119/
Vattel said it or not, Kerchner believes it, that settles it.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15623
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Post and Email

#10504

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:51 pm

Someone here, Tes as I recall, assembled a list of Supreme Court cases using the terms "natural born" and "native born". I think the bottom line was they are used interchangeably. Does anyone still have a link?

In hundreds of articles and books written about the Constitution native born citizens are considered to be natural born and eligible to serve as president. This blog post contains a list of references found using Google Books:

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.b ... tates.html

Idiots like Kerchner ignore all of this and misquote Vattel.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34804
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10505

Post by realist » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:32 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:51 pm
Someone here, Tes as I recall, assembled a list of Supreme Court cases using the terms "natural born" and "native born". I think the bottom line was they are used interchangeably. Does anyone still have a link?

In hundreds of articles and books written about the Constitution native born citizens are considered to be natural born and eligible to serve as president. This blog post contains a list of references found using Google Books:

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.b ... tates.html

Idiots like Kerchner ignore all of this and misquote Vattel.
I lost most of my bookmarks a while back but you are correct, on her typepad birther blog she did exactly that and, as I recall, there was not one instance where they were not used interchangeably. I suspect all that info still exists but would have to search for the link.

EDITED TO ADD: https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/

SCOTUS AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN: https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your ... ndium.html
The US Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly equated the concept of "natural born citizenship" with "native-born citizenship" and "born a US citizen." Indeed, there is no case in which the Court makes any distinction between a natural born citizen and a native born citizen or born US citizen.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10506

Post by bob » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:19 pm

P&E comments:
Hamilton Nash wrote:Huhhhh

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,)” St. George Tucker

St. George Tucker was a Revolutionary War hero, wounded at the Battle of Yorktown, lawyer, professor of law at William and Mary.
Gary Wilmott wrote:Two observations: 1. No democratic rival is going to challenge Harris’ constitutional eligibility to be POTUS…that’s wishful thinking; and 2. Harris is absolutely not a Natural Born Citizen as neither parent had been in the United States the requisite 5 years to be naturalized American citizens when she was born in 1964. Kamala Harris is a fraud and a political opportunist who has no respect for the Constitution, just like the person who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama, and republican “presidential wannabe’s”, Rafael Cruz and Marco Rubio.
Laity wrote:NO!!! Kamala Harris is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen”.

[ * * * ]

Hamilton Nash, In addition to what CDR Kerchner said, the U.S. Supreme Court cemented the definition of Natural Born Citizen for posterity. In a UNANIMOUS (9-0) decision they found that a natural born [U.S.] citizen is one born IN the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens themselves. See: Minor v Happersett, USSCt. (1874).
James Carter wrote:Hamilton Nash posted: “Natural born and native born meant the same thing to the Founders.”

Native born = simply born on U.S. soil = born to British subjects unknown to each other who met in the U.S. and had an affair and a baby while here.

Really?
Rondeau wrote:Maybe he’s an Obot.
Kerchner wrote:Sharon: Yes, maybe so. Seems to be spreading subtle disinformation and conflation of terms. Possibly a gas-lighter: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/gas-lighting/ Logically all “natural born Citizens” are “native born Citizens” but not all “native born Citizens” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/ ... n-citizen/ The far left continually tries to conflate terms as being identical when they are not. Vattel was very clear what he meant when he used the term “natives” and “natural born Citizen” in his section 212. He clearly defined it in the same sentence. He did not use the term “native born”. And “native born” is not in our constitution. And as the other comment pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Minor vs Happersett what a “natural born Citizen” clearly is, exactly what Vattel said. For more relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions see: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

A “natural born Citizen’ born in the country to parents who are both Citizens of the country when the child is born is a person born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth. That minimizes chances of foreign influences on the child by birth circumstances which is exactly what John Jay had in mind when he suggested the term “natural born Citizen” to George Washington in his 1787 letter.

I don’t know who “rooster Nash” really is but imo he (or she if in masking mode) seems bent on spreading disinformation and conflations of terms.

* * *

Kamala Harris is definitely not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards. More information found here:

Re: Kamala: https://www.scribd.com/lists/22182725/S ... zen-of-U-S

Re: Vattel’s influence on the founders and framers: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3224507/Va ... -s-Framers

Re: Papers discussing “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Pa ... -Standards

Re: Article II Super PAC page about how Congress has tried to subvert the true meaning and intent and founders and framers understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards. All attempts by both parties in Congress failed so the political parties in 2008 just decided to ignore the true meaning of the “natural born Citizen” and wage a disinformation campaign with their willing accomplices in the major main stream media, accomplices of both parties: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

The fix was in by all the major political parties in the 2008 election to ignore the true meaning, intent, and understanding of the “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2010/ ... al-crisis/

More from my collections: https://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/pr ... erty/lists
:brickwallsmall:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15623
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Post and Email

#10507

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:52 pm

realist wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:32 pm
I lost most of my bookmarks a while back but you are correct, on her typepad birther blog she did exactly that and, as I recall, there was not one instance where they were not used interchangeably. I suspect all that info still exists but would have to search for the link.

EDITED TO ADD: https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/

SCOTUS AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN: https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your ... ndium.html
The US Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly equated the concept of "natural born citizenship" with "native-born citizenship" and "born a US citizen." Indeed, there is no case in which the Court makes any distinction between a natural born citizen and a native born citizen or born US citizen.
Thanks for the link. :thumbs: I added that to my blog in the Resources section.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10508

Post by bob » Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:14 pm

The sequel's even better: P&E: Is Tulsi Gabbard a Natural Born Citizen?:
Joseph DeMaio wrote:“PART OF THE UNITED STATES,” OR NOT?

Well, well, well…, who woulda thunk? Following the first round of Democrat Loser Debates, it seems that a consensus is developing that the junior representative from Hawaii, Ms. Tulsi Gabbard may just be rising in the polls. In an unofficial “poll” conducted online by The Drudge Report during and following the debate, some 40% of around 50,400 respondents picked Gabbard as the winner of the debate, with her closest 2nd place rival, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, coming in at less than 12.5%.

[ * * * ]

Wait a second… while Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii, faithful P&E readers know two things: (1) that assertion is likely false or, at minimum, unsubstantiated, and (2) even if true, the documentation he has supplied seems clearly to establish in any event that he is not (and was not when he usurped the presidency) a “natural born Citizen” as required under the Constitution.

But what about Gabbard? Apart from most of her goofy ideas and positions trending toward the radical-progressive wing of the Democrat Party (she was a vice-chair of the “Democratic [sic] National Committee” for a brief period of time before resigning to endorse Bernie Sanders for president in 2016… not the smartest move…), there is another impediment she will likely face. She, along with another Democrat presidential-wannabe, Kamala Harris, must prove that she is eligible as a “natural born Citizen” under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution.

This task arises, of course, because although from all appearances, both of her parents – Carol (née Porter) and Mike Gabbard – were both already U.S citizens on April 12, 1981, Tulsi Gabbard’s birth did not take place within the United States. Rather, it took place in Leloaloa, Maoputasi County, American Samoa. As faithful P&E readers also know, under the provisions of § of 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations – and upon which tome the Founders “continually relied” while drafting the Constitution, including the “natural born Citizen” restriction of Art. 2, 1, Cl. 5 – in order for one to satisfy the eligibility restriction, not only must the child’s parents be citizens of the nation where the birth occurs, the birth must take place on that nation’s soil.

This is where it gets sticky. While American Samoa is a “territory” of the United States, it is not an “incorporated territory.” This is the same issue that faced Sen. John McCain in 2008, when he faced off against Monsieur Obama as discussed here. Among several issues in McCain’s case was whether he was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station hospital, a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone, or whether he was born in a hospital in Colón, Panama, which has never has been a part of the United States. Parenthetically, in a case challenging his eligibility – Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008) – the record indicated that a copy of McCain’s birth certificate was received in evidence, with the judge stating that the birth certificate “lists his place of birth as Colón.” Id. at 65.

At the time of his birth (1936), the Panama Canal Zone was an unincorporated territory under the control of the United States. However, the United States Supreme Court had ruled 35 years earlier that unincorporated territories, even if under the control of the United States, are not, prior to formal action by the Congress, a part of the United States. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). Thereafter, the Court ruled that the full spectrum of the Constitution’s provisions apply only in incorporated territories of the United States, thereby excluding from that full spectrum its application in unincorporated territories. Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905).

Before anyone jumps to the erroneous conclusion that this means that the natural born Citizen restriction would not apply at all to a person born in American Samoa (or any other unincorporated territory of the United States), note that the Rassmussen case involved only the question of whether a person’s constitutional rights under the 6th Amendment applied at all in the Territory of Alaska and not whether the mandates of other constitutional provisions applied.

In addition, the Downes case affirmed the principle that, whether a territory was already “incorporated” into the United States by act of Congress or not, “[o]ur Constitution, in its operation, is co-extensive with our political jurisdiction…,” citing The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460 (1879). Thus, the Supreme Court has seemingly confirmed that the mandate of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution – the “natural born Citizen” eligibility restriction clause – would be and is, as intended by the Founders, applicable to a child born to U.S. citizen parents anywhere, including, as to Senator McCain, the Panama Canal Zone or, as to Representative Gabbard, American Samoa.

This conclusion is also fortified by recognition that, after enacting 1 Stat. 103, the “1790 Naturalization Act,” declaring children born to U.S. citizen parents “beyond sea” (i.e., not in the United States) to be “considered” as natural born citizens, Congress repealed altogether that law by enacting 1 Stat. 414 in 1795, the “1795 Naturalization Act.” The title of the 1795 act was: “An Act to establish an [sic: so in original] uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.” (Emphasis added)

There is no indication in the 1795 Act’s title of any intent to preserve the “considered as natural born citizens” modifier of the children affected. Instead, there is a clear objective of totally repealing that provision along with the rest of the prior statute. In so doing, Congress changed the language of the prior law by declaring that such children born “beyond sea” would thereafter be considered “citizens,” but not “natural born citizens.”

So what does all of this mean for Tulsi Gabbard? It seems to mean the same thing as for Kamala Harris. Until an insouciant Supreme Court finds the backbone to undertake an examination of the “natural born Citizen” issue under Art. 2. § 1, Cl. 5 in a live “case or controversy,” we will need to remain satisfied with watching the Democrat circus stumble forward laboring under the belief that both Harris and Gabbard (and perhaps others) are constitutionally eligible. Both are likely ineligible.
Executive summary: DeMaio knows more than SCOTUS. :roll:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2012
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: The Post and Email

#10509

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:36 pm

To be “fair” bob, DeMaio isn’t the only one. Plenty of fogbowers think recent SCOTUS decisions are off.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10510

Post by bob » Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:10 pm

P&E: “Birtherism” Trending on Twitter Saturday Morning:
“RACISM” AGAIN INVOKED AGAINST THOSE QUESTIONING CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY

The fourth-most-popular trend on Twitter Saturday before 9:00 a.m. EDT was “Birtherism,” a pejorative which refers to questions about the constitutional eligibility of a presidential candidate and is often paired with claims of “racism.”

At the top of the Twitter trend for a time was a reposting of a 2016 article at The Washington Post titled, “Birtherism was why so many Republicans liked Trump in the first place,” later replaced with The Daily Beast‘s “Kamala Harris is Surging and Birtherism is Back.” Neither site will allow a reader using an ad-blocker to read the material.

[Usual birther :yankyank: snipped.]

As The Post & Email has reported, Harris was born in Oakland, CA on October 20, 1964. Some readers have questioned her eligibility not because of her parentage or “ethnicity,” as The Beast article suggests, but rather because it appears neither parent was a U.S. citizen when she was born.

[More birther :yankyank: snipped.]

A Buzzfeed article (h/t CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret) published Friday appears to echo the theme of The Daily Beast article. Titled “A New Racist Campaign Against Kamala Harris Is Taking Shape,” it references The Post & Email’s interview of California resident and registered voter Gary Wilmott last August regarding a letter he wrote to Harris’s U.S. Senate office raising questions about her eligibility to which he received no response.

Of that article, Buzzfeed reported that it “received more than 14,000 shares, likes, and reactions on Facebook and was tweeted more than 10,000 times, according to data from CrowdTangle, a social media analytics service.”

* * *

Unlike others mentioned in the Buzzfeed’s article, The Post & Email was not contacted for comment.

Our Friday statistics show that not only the August article, but also others focusing on Harris’s and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s eligibility, the latest written by Joseph DeMaio, were in high demand.

As with Wilmott, Harris’s Senate office did not respond to our inquiries as to whether or not her parents were naturalized when she was born. According to her Wikipedia biography, however, neither lived in the United States for five years prior to her birth, a requirement for a legal resident to apply for citizenship.
Blowing Rondeau off is newsworthy!

And maybe Rondeau will reflect on why the P&E was namedchecked alongside Daily Stormer? :think:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9372
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: The Post and Email

#10511

Post by Orlylicious » Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:32 pm

C'mon Chuckles, we have a beautiful area for you in the #DeadBirthers topic. You retired in 1995, what's the holdup Chuckles? Worried Heaven is filled with colored people and illegal aliens?
:vacuum:
CDR Kerchner-Ret
Published on May 16, 2016
CDR Charles F Kerchner Jr Retirement Ceremony -1500 - Sunday - 10 Sep 1995.
Enlisting at the age of 17, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. retired after 33 years of faithful and honorable service to his country in both an active duty and inactive duty status in the United States Naval Reserves on various ships and duty stations. He served 14 years as an enlisted person advancing to Chief Petty Officer. He then received a commission and served 19 years as a Commissioned Officer rising to the rank of full Commander.


2 Responses to "“Birtherism” Trending on Twitter Saturday Morning"
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
Saturday, June 29, 2019 at 2:41 PM

The issue is not about race or politics and the pejorative of birtherism as the radical socialist left calls our movement. It is about supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States. In particular Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the presidential eligibility clause and the founders and framers intent, meaning, and understanding when they inserted the term “natural born Citizen” in said clause to prevent persons born with foreign influence by and at birth and foreign allegiance demands on them by birth status from ever getting control of our military as the Commander in Chief. That is clear from the summer of 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington who was presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia PA. It is “Constitutionalism”, not “Birtherism” that is the core of our movement to support and defend the Constitution. See this white paper for more details about the “natural born Citizen” term and its choice: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliber ... tution.pdf Also see my collections of evidence, reports, and writings (historical and recent) about some politicians seeking high office, the Presidency, who were NOT or are NOT a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional status and thus are NOT eligible for the office they seek: http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/pro ... erty/lists

Obama born a dual citizen and a citizen of the world in mind set got away with it. Ted Cruz tried to usurp the office of the Presidency too. Both political parties are guilty of trying to subvert and undermine the “natural born Citizen” requirement. We cannot let it happen again. We can not let another usurper become the Commander in Chief. We Constitutionalists must battle the forces trying to do it again. We cannot allow Kamala Harris and/or others to attempt to usurp the office of the Presidency without calling them out for what they are — not constitutionally eligible to be the President and CinC, or the VP.

The radical far left is good at name calling and weak on the history of the founders and framers intent, meaning, and understanding of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in our U.S. Constitution. CDR Kerchner (Ret) – http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
Avatar Photo: Dedicated to Slim by the International Brotherhood of Weasels.
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34804
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10512

Post by realist » Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:42 pm

The radical far left is good at name calling and weak on the history of the founders and framers intent, meaning, and understanding of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in our U.S. Constitution. CDR Kerchner (Ret) – http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org


Oh, puhleeze. :roll:

You morons just keep telling yourselves that as you Ck time to not only lose but look like the dumbasses you are.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7058
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10513

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:43 pm

So birthers don't like being called racists? :crying:

Easy solution Stop being racists. Because that's what birthers are. :boxing:

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: The Post and Email

#10514

Post by neonzx » Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:30 am

https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/06/30 ... president/
:snippity: Referring to two lawsuits he filed challenging the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Laity wrote in an email Friday morning:
In both Laity v NY & Obama and Laity v NY,Cruz,Rubio and Jindal both the NYBOE and NY State Supreme Court were notified that NY State is in NON-Compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

On the NYBOE official website, NY State continues to misrepresent the federal requirement to be President and Vice President as “born a citizen”. This is NOT the proper term of art. The proper term of art is “Natural Born Citizen” as the State of NY has been informed of several times now since 2008.

I must insist that the NY State BOE correct this erroneous information.

Furthermore, in advance of the 2020 Presidential elections I wish to inform you that Kamala Harris is NOT a “Natural Born [U.S.] Citizen.

As you were previously apprised. A natural born citizen of the U.S. is one born IN the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves. See: Minor v Happersett, USSCt. (1874).
Laity then inserted a link to the NYSBOE’s posted requirements for various federal and state-level offices, beginning with that of the president, which continues to express the citizenship requirements as “born a citizen.” :snippity:
:smoking:
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10515

Post by bob » Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:04 pm

P&E: Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision Quotes Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”:
Joseph DeMaio wrote:“TAKEN AS A GIVEN BY THE FOUNDERS”

Recently, your faithful servant (moi) submitted a post for consideration here at The P&E, which the intrepid editor accepted and published. The post arose in connection with the continuing question of who is – and more importantly, who is not (and was not) – eligible to the office of the president as a “natural born Citizen.” Based on new information received, a correction needs to be made.

Specifically, the post addressed the “removal” of the original Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) April 3, 2009 Memorandum from the “scribd.com” website where it had originally appeared on the Internet. Go ahead, click on the link and see what pops up. The image of the memo was likely originally posted by eligibility guru Mario Apuzzo at his website.

There is no explanation accompanying the notice of removal and no indication of why it was done or who ordered/requested that it be scrubbed. This was the original CRS Memorandum prepared by a CRS lawyer, Jack Maskell, who has been the subject of many of your faithful servant’s offerings over the years, and in particular, his (or his superiors’) substantive ellipsis alteration of a quote from the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

* * *

As noted with regard to Sen. Kamala Harris here and here and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard here, the constitutional “natural born Citizen” issue will continue to bubble up and fester on the political landscape until the Supreme Court screws up the courage to accept jurisdiction over a “ripe” “case or controversy” and decide, one way or the other, who is correct: (1) Emmerich (or Emer) de Vattel and the Founders, or (2) Jack Maskell. The smart money is on the former.

And speaking of de Vattel, even as this post was being composed, your faithful servant came across an interesting nugget. Recall that the 2009 CRS Memo and subsequent 2011 and 2016 “Reports” trivialize and dismiss the seminal work of E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations. Indeed, the 2011 CRS Report, Nov. 14, 2011), at 22, makes the absurd assertion that, because (purportedly) no French-to-English translation of The Law of Nations was available in 1787 when the Founders were drafting the Constitution, they could not possibly have been influenced by de Vattel when he used the term “naturels ou indigenes” or have contemplated those words meant “natural born citizens.” Reasoning such as this, coming from the repository of “the nation’s best thinking,” gives new meaning to the term “goofy.”

In this regard, the aforementioned nugget comes in the form of the May 13, 2019 (hot off the press) 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, __ U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019). The case involved a tax dispute and issues of state sovereign immunity. But the discussion of the origins of state sovereign immunity in the majority opinion (Thomas, J.) contains this gem (139 S.Ct. at 1493-1494): “According to the founding era’s foremost expert on the law of nations, “[it] does not … belong to any foreign power to take cognizance of the administration of [another] sovereign, to set himself up for a judge of his conduct, and to oblige him to alter it.” 2 E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations § 55, p. 155 (J. Chitty ed. 1883). The sovereign is “exemp[t] … from all [foreign] jurisdiction.” 4 id., § 108, at 486. The founding generation thus took as given that States could not be haled involuntarily before each other’s courts.” (Emphasis added)

With those words, the Supreme Court once again – and in textual opinion rather than in a footnote as in United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 462, n.12 (1977) – acknowledges de Vattel as the “foremost expert” on the law of nations and that “thus,” the “founding generation” relied on his teachings and the provisions of The Law of Nations when drafting the Constitution. Stated otherwise, if the principles of de Vattel’s tome articulated in § 55 are good enough to be “taken as a given by the Founders” and serve as a guide for the Supreme Court in adjudicating a present-day issue regarding the sovereign immunity of the states, why are not the principles of § 212 properly accorded the same degree of authority regarding constitutional eligibility under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 instead of being marginalized and relegated to a lower level of import?
Obama's ineligibile because Thomas recently cited de Vattel! :roll:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10516

Post by bob » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:10 pm

P&E comments:
Bernie Ohls wrote:There were IIRC at least three English language versions of Law of Nations published before 1787.

[ * * * ]

The 1760 and 1792 editions say “natives, or indigene”
[ * * * ]
Dennis Becker wrote:For anyone interested here is the 1760 Newbery edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

https://books.google.com/books?id=MRo2A ... &q&f=false

* * *

Although published after the Constitutional Convention, this 1792 Dublin edition by Luke White is interesting.

https://books.google.com/books?id=VlJgA ... &q&f=false
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16653
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: The Post and Email

#10517

Post by Suranis » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:45 pm

realist wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:32 pm
Reality Check wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:51 pm
Someone here, Tes as I recall, assembled a list of Supreme Court cases using the terms "natural born" and "native born". I think the bottom line was they are used interchangeably. Does anyone still have a link?

In hundreds of articles and books written about the Constitution native born citizens are considered to be natural born and eligible to serve as president. This blog post contains a list of references found using Google Books:

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.b ... tates.html

Idiots like Kerchner ignore all of this and misquote Vattel.
I lost most of my bookmarks a while back but you are correct, on her typepad birther blog she did exactly that and, as I recall, there was not one instance where they were not used interchangeably. I suspect all that info still exists but would have to search for the link.

EDITED TO ADD: https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/

SCOTUS AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN: https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your ... ndium.html
The US Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly equated the concept of "natural born citizenship" with "native-born citizenship" and "born a US citizen." Indeed, there is no case in which the Court makes any distinction between a natural born citizen and a native born citizen or born US citizen.
Here is another one.

https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ... -quotes-2/
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10518

Post by bob » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:09 pm

P&E: Tucker Carlson Discusses “Birtherism,” Kamala Harris Background:
DOES A BIRTH TO “IMMIGRANT PARENTS” PRECLUDE “NATURAL BORN” CITIZENSHIP?
No. Continuing:
Shortly after the opening of Tuesday night’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” broadcasting from the North/South Korea border where President Trump visited on Sunday, Carlson’s producer showed a montage of mainstream-media personalities who accused Donald Trump Jr. of “racism” after he retweeted a remark last week claiming that presidential candidate Kamala Harris is not the descendant of American blacks.

* * *

On his Tuesday show Carlson accused the Democrat Party of sowing “division” among the electorate by injecting the accusation of “racism” into the dialogue about Harris while the montage’s commentators accused Trump Jr. and others of “birtherism.”

[Usual birther :yankyank: snipped.]

At approximately 8:08 p.m. EDT, Carlson introduced his first guest, Rob Smith of Turning Point USA. In his commenatary, Smith, who is black, said that those claiming Harris has no connection to former slaves or their descendants are correct. He then accurately reported that Harris was born in Oakland, CA to “immigrant parents.”

[More birther :yankyank: snipped.]
:yawn:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44468
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: The Post and Email

#10519

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:52 pm

bob - thanks for reading, watching and listening to all this garbage so that we don't have to. How do you keep your sanity (or is that assuming a fact not in evidence?)?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10520

Post by bob » Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:34 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:52 pm
How do you keep your sanity (or is that assuming a fact not in evidence?)?
Birthers keep me sane!: I may be having a bad day, but at least my self-worth isn't tied to perpetuating a decade-old long-since-discarded conspiracy theory.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12379
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10521

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:26 am

bob wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:34 pm
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:52 pm
How do you keep your sanity (or is that assuming a fact not in evidence?)?
Birthers keep me sane!: I may be having a bad day, but at least my self-worth isn't tied to perpetuating a decade-old long-since-discarded conspiracy theory.
Or having that as your ONLY justification for existence.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10522

Post by bob » Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:58 am

P&E: comments:
Thomas W Arnold wrote:Respectfully, Sharon, in what way did Tucker Carlson PERSONALLY mention or discuss “birtherism?” I wasn’t watching the program, so I don’t know but have my suspicions (i.e. that Tucker, a FOX NEWS anchor/lackey, would not and did not seriously and/or personally “discuss” birtherism on the air). Thanks, Sharon, and God Bless America and super patriots/journalists like yourself. Tom Arnold.

[ * * * ]
Rondeau wrote:Check it out for yourself:
It is painfully obvious from Rondeau's non-article and non-response that Rondeau churned out a clickbait article because Carlson's guest said, "birtherism."

Bonus:
Laity wrote:There are striking similarities between both Harris and Obama:

1). Neither have two U.S. citizen parents.
2). Both have British Ancestors
3). Both do not have any claim to be descended from African-American Slaves.
4). Both, it has been shown by research, had ancestors that owned Black slaves.
5). Both are ineligible to be President or VP.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8208
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: The Post and Email

#10523

Post by Northland10 » Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:18 pm

Oh my, I have many similarities with them:

2. I have British Ancestors (granted, the last ones left England 300+ years ago).
3. I have not claim to being descended from African American slaves.
4. I have ancestors who owned black slaves.
5. I am also eligible to be elected President or VP, just like Kamala is and Obama was.

Um... Kamala father was from Jamaica, not America. Her ancestors who may have been slaves would not have been African American slaves but African Jamaican slaves.

Was Laity screaming in the 1990s when a retired Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff and future Secretary of State was contemplating running for President? He was born in New York to Jamaican immigrants. Since he did not learn his advanced legal knowledge until later, he probably would have just screamed about Colin Powell being black (ignoring that Powell also has Scottish ancestry).
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12379
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10524

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:36 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:18 pm
Oh my, I have many similarities with them:

2. I have British Ancestors (granted, the last ones left England 300+ years ago).
3. I have not claim to being descended from African American slaves.
4. I have ancestors who owned black slaves.
5. I am also eligible to be elected President or VP, just like Kamala is and Obama was.

Um... Kamala father was from Jamaica, not America. Her ancestors who may have been slaves would not have been African American slaves but African Jamaican slaves.

Was Laity screaming in the 1990s when a retired Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff and future Secretary of State was contemplating running for President? He was born in New York to Jamaican immigrants. Since he did not learn his advanced legal knowledge until later, he probably would have just screamed about Colin Powell being black (ignoring that Powell also has Scottish ancestry).
Nah, cause GOP.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9372
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: The Post and Email

#10525

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:20 pm

You've heard this from me before -- I'm always amazed how on wonderful, happy holidays, these fake patriots stay in their holes typing angry bullshit instead. On a brighter note, we're "The Village Idiots" -- but he was typing too fast, surely he meant "The Village People" :P It's a real love letter :lovestruck:


Image

Of “Birthers,” Racists and Village Idiots
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 No Comment
“MOTIVATED BY ALINSKY”
by Joseph DeMaio

(Jul. 4, 2019) —
***
It matters not to them that what passes for “logic” in their rants has little if anything to do with the intent of the Founders when they included the “natural born Citizen” clause in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. All that matters to them is how that intent can be twisted and forged into a weapon against conservatives, old white males and, of course, President Trump. As discussed below, these folks – let us call them, collectively, “The Village Idiots” – have thus far succeeded in ridiculing and morphing legitimate concerns over the constitutional eligibility of persons aspiring to the presidency into a bogus claim of “racism” against “people of color.” End of discussion.

The origin of this metamorphosis seems to be traceable to the fact that the second usurpation of the U.S. presidency (the first being President Chester A. Arthur, 1881-1885) was accomplished by a person of mixed ethnicity, one Barack Hussein Obama II (2009-2017). His mother was a white Caucasian, his father was a black African, leading him to describe how others saw him in his book, Dreams from my Father, as a “tragic mulatto.” The issue of his ethnicity completely aside, because his father, Barack Hussein Obama I, was never a U.S. citizen, but was a British subject and, after 1964, a citizen of the Republic of Kenya, Barack Hussein Obama II was not, under the principles of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, a “natural born Citizen” eligible to the presidency.

Returning to the tactics of the Left, they are lifted and applied straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” the “bible” of leftists and their sycophants in the media. Indeed, Alinsky’s Rule No. 5 and Rule No. 10 lie at the core of the leftists’ arguments that a “birther” is synonymous with a “racist.” Rule No. 5 states: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Rule No. 10 states: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
***
The fundamental problem with the Village Idiots’ thesis is that it equates and intentionally confuses, then substitutes a person’s “nationality,” with that person’s “race” or “ethnicity.” A person’s race is not synonymous with the person’s nationality. In the case of Monsieur Obama, for example, the fact that he had an Anglo mother and an African father has absolutely nothing to do with the question of his constitutional ineligibility. Zip. Zed. Zilch. Zero.
***
And yet, adhering to Alinsky’s Rules 5 and 10, the leftists lampoon and ridicule anyone who would dare question the false equivalency of “ethnicity” and “nationality.” Those with the temerity to question the narrative are first labeled as dull-witted, knuckle-dragging “birthers” or “racists,” then targeted as “enemies” whose efforts to communicate a differing (and, parenthetically, rational) view which motivated the Founders must be immobilized and stopped. Finally, they are demonized and isolated from those who entertain the more “enlightened” view that if one is merely born in this nation, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, one is a natural born citizen eligible to the presidency. Like this gem.

Memo to the Village Idiots: it isn’t working any more. With the resurgence of rational thought following the election of President Trump and the reexamination of the issue as questions about the eligibility of Sen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard take place, more and more people are realizing that they have been bamboozled on the topic for many years. And they are not pleased.

Those who would equate legitimate concerns over the constitutional eligibility of persons seeking the presidency with “racism” are either fools or leftists. Or both. They do not “get it” and they don’t care. Their only concern is squashing any rational discussion of the issue and moving this nation as far to the left as they can. Stated otherwise, while the Democrats are motivated by Alinsky, the Founders were motivated by de Vattel.

As your faithful servant has on prior occasions observed: you cannot fix stupid, but you can vote it out of power. On this 243rd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (and a happy Fourth of July to all devoted P&E readers), please note that the 2020 general election is less than 17 months away. Something is very rotten in the State of Deep, so vote very carefully on Nov. 3, 2020, because the future of your nation – as you have known it – may very well depend on it.
https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/07/04 ... ge-idiots/

Is he not aware Donald and the Senate are in GOP hands? He's hilarious. Happy 4th Joe, don't choke on a chicken bone! :talktothehand:
Avatar Photo: Dedicated to Slim by the International Brotherhood of Weasels.
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”