The Post and Email

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: The Post and Email

#10101

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:12 pm

Some thoughts on the "debate" about birthright citizenship for the children of "illegals".

The 14th Amendment states"
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
.

If "illegal immigrants" are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by what law are they "illegal"?



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10477
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10102

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:45 pm

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:12 pm
Some thoughts on the "debate" about birthright citizenship for the children of "illegals".

The 14th Amendment states"
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
.

If "illegal immigrants" are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by what law are they "illegal"?
How then can they be illegal OR deported if they AREN'T "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" our laws. If that isn't being subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then I don't know what is.


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.

Jcolvin2
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

Re: The Post and Email

#10103

Post by Jcolvin2 » Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:59 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:45 pm
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:12 pm
Some thoughts on the "debate" about birthright citizenship for the children of "illegals".

The 14th Amendment states"
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
.

If "illegal immigrants" are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by what law are they "illegal"?
How then can they be illegal OR deported if they AREN'T "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" our laws. If that isn't being subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then I don't know what is.
While this is outside my area, I think the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause carves out those who were born in the US (or later naturalized), but later lost or renounced their citizenship, e.g., by becoming citizens of other countries (such that they were no longer "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"). These departees are not citizens pursuant to the language of the amendement.

If I'm wrong on this, I'm sure someone will correct me.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9409
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10104

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:04 pm

At present, "subject to the Jurisdiction" includes basically everyone in the country who is not a diplomat. At the time of the amendment, it also included Native Americans.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 2752
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10105

Post by Whip » Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:12 pm

the latter with an arguably unflattering photo of the 45th president.
pic of rondoo with trump hairpiece photoshopped on?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10106

Post by bob » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:50 pm

Ob. P&E: Committee Dems Decry Kavanaugh’s Missing Documentation, but What About Obama?:
SHOULDN’T A PRESIDENT BE “DOCUMENTED?”

Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing included members’ interrupting Chairman Charles Grassley seconds into the session to demand an adjournment, gave lengthy and politically-charged opening statements, and contended that the alleged “90%” of government documents associated with DC District Court of Appeals Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s public service has not been provided to them, resulting in what they say will be a “tainted” appointment should Kavanaugh be confirmed.

* * *

Objections to their non-receipt of all of Kavanaugh’s documentation dating back to when he served as staff secretary in the George W. Bush administration became front-and-center to Democrats’ demands, from the beginning of Grassley’s own opening statement, to adjourn the hearing and enter an executive session.

Many Democrats and Republicans on the committee invoked the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights during their respective soliloquies.

However, congressional Democrats and Republicans were willing to seat a chief executive in January 2009 and January 2013 without his having provided any documents proving that he was eligible under the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, clause 5, which requires that the president be a “natural born Citizen.”

[Usual birther :yankyank: snipped.]


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 2752
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10107

Post by Whip » Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:28 pm

ha! who didn't see this coming.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10108

Post by bob » Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:21 am

P&E: Blumenthal Responds to Comment on Kavanaugh Hearings…:
OR DOES HE?

On Tuesday this writer sent a comment to the office of Sen. Richard Blumethal (D-CT) regarding the conduct of Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats toward Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) which began seconds into his opening remarks in the confirmation hearings for U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Washington, DC Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

This writer did not retain a copy of the sent email, as she indicated no response was requested nor expected.

[Blumethal's first response snipped.]

Our message made no mention of “H.R. 24.”

[Blumethal's second response snipped.]

Our communication did not touch on whether or not Kavanaugh is qualified nor any decisions he might make if confirmed to the Supreme Court by the U.S. Senate through the “advice and consent” clause of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

It did, however, recount that Blumenthal unequivocally supported a “president” with a birth certificate and Selective Service registration form found to be fraudulent by a criminal investigation. To that, there was no response.
Rondeau's being FOAD'ed is newsworthy!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6053
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10109

Post by Sam the Centipede » Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:55 am

I like the way "this writer" refers tto a "criminal investigation". I guess she* cannot avoid being right occasionally. A police investigation carries some weight becausepolice have a duty to acf honestly, professionally and ethically. But a criminal investigation lacks that, as criminals naturally lie and deceive. The birthers' hero ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio is, of course, a convicted criminal in addition to his other unpleasant personality traits: I don't know the extent of Mike Zullo's criminality but having heard him lying about Barack Obama, I am confident his "investigation" fits Rondeau's description of it as "criminal".
——————
* or they — "this writer" also cannot decide whether to be singular or plural



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7847
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: DHS Psy-Ops HQ

Re: The Post and Email

#10110

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:01 am

The letter is really funny considering it was sent to a RWNJ and Rharon in particular. On the other hand, he's keeping her government benefits coming so there's that.

Dear Mrs. Rondeau,

Thank you for your message regarding the pending Supreme Court nomination. I appreciate hearing from you.

Unfortunately, since assuming office, President Trump’s administration has tried its level best to move our country backward by implementing its destructive, deeply unpopular agenda. These efforts have continued with President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh’s record and writings signal an extreme hostility to the precious rights and liberties that make our nation great. I will vote “no” on his nomination.

Judge Kavanaugh has passed the Trump litmus test – screened and vetted by extreme right-wing groups intent on destroying hard-won rights and liberties enshrined in long established law. This litmus test – stated repeatedly and clearly – demands a commitment to overturn Roe v. Wade and eviscerate key healthcare rights including protections for Americans who suffer from preexisting conditions. Also on the chopping block are LGBTQ rights, voting rights, and many civil rights. No other president has set such a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. No other president has allowed himself to be a puppet of extreme right-wing outside organizations, or outsourced the selection to fringe groups such as the Federalist Society.

But even if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, my colleagues should join me in demanding he recuse himself from cases that appear almost certain to come before the Court – cases that will test whether the president can defy a subpoena, pardon his cronies or himself, or even fire a special counsel. If our country is to remain a nation of laws – where no one is above the law – we cannot allow the president to appoint a Supreme Court swing vote to insulate himself from accountability for criminality and wrongdoing.

Furthermore, my Republican colleagues should follow their own precedent by refusing to hold a confirmation vote on any Supreme Court nominee until after the 2018 elections. This precedent was established when Republicans refused to hold even a hearing for President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, because of the upcoming 2016 election. As made clear by the Republican precedent, the American people should have a voice in this process. A decision of this historic magnitude requires more deliberate consideration than is possible in the politically charged months between now and the election. The future of privacy protections, women’s healthcare, and many basic civil rights all hinge on who is chosen as the next Supreme Court justice.

Thank you again for your message. I will be sure to keep your views in mind as I consider how to address the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Kennedy’s retirement. I commit to you that I will not stand by while this administration seeks to take our country backward by nominating a Supreme Court candidate who will undo the tireless work of millions of Americans in moving our country forward.

Sincerely,

Richard Blumenthal
United States Senate



noblepa
Posts: 987
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: The Post and Email

#10111

Post by noblepa » Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:15 am

bob wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:21 am
P&E: Blumenthal Responds to Comment on Kavanaugh Hearings…:
OR DOES HE?

On Tuesday this writer sent a comment to the office of Sen. Richard Blumethal (D-CT) regarding the conduct of Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats toward Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) which began seconds into his opening remarks in the confirmation hearings for U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Washington, DC Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

This writer did not retain a copy of the sent email, as she indicated no response was requested nor expected.

[Blumethal's first response snipped.]

Our message made no mention of “H.R. 24.”

[Blumethal's second response snipped.]

Our communication did not touch on whether or not Kavanaugh is qualified nor any decisions he might make if confirmed to the Supreme Court by the U.S. Senate through the “advice and consent” clause of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

It did, however, recount that Blumenthal unequivocally supported a “president” with a birth certificate and Selective Service registration form found to be fraudulent by a criminal investigation. To that, there was no response.
Rondeau's being FOAD'ed is newsworthy!
Rondeau also conveniently ignores the fact that the Senate has no obligation to vet an elected president. It is also doubtful that they have such authority, even if the Senators DID believe the birther nonsense. The Senate can't even initiate impeachment proceedings. That is the purview of the House of Representatives. The Senate only sits as the jury.

On the other hand, the Senate clearly DOES have an obligation and authority to vet Supreme Court nominees.

She is so stupid, it makes my brain hurt.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14920
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Post and Email

#10112

Post by Reality Check » Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:51 am

noblepa wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:15 am
Rondeau also conveniently ignores the fact that the Senate has no obligation to vet an elected president. It is also doubtful that they have such authority, even if the Senators DID believe the birther nonsense. The Senate can't even initiate impeachment proceedings. That is the purview of the House of Representatives. The Senate only sits as the jury.

On the other hand, the Senate clearly DOES have an obligation and authority to vet Supreme Court nominees.

She is so stupid, it makes my brain hurt.
Also, Rondeau had a chance as we all did to vote for or against Barack Obama - twice as a matter of fact. We do not have a chance to vote for or against Kavanaugh.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10113

Post by bob » Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:06 pm

Senators (along with House members) also certify the vote of the Electoral College, and have an opportunity to object then.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10114

Post by bob » Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:47 pm

P&E: U.S. Senate Checks Out Article on Kamala Harris’s Presidential Eligibility:
“NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN…”

At approximately 9:30 AM EDT Friday morning, someone utilizing a “U.S. Senate” ISP accessed The Post & Email’s recent article investigating the issue of whether or not Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to serve as president.

* * *

As evidenced by a Yahoo! search by this writer early Friday afternoon, Harris’s questioning of Kavanaugh has captured the attention of many.

* * *

In May 2016, just after Cruz conceded the Republican primaries to then-candidate Donald Trump, The Post & Email was told by a highly reliable source that he had confirmed that Cruz’s mother took Canadian citizenship while the couple resided in Calgary between 1968 and 1974.

* * *

Throughout Obama’s campaigns and two-term presidency, the mainstream media refused to investigate whether or not he was, in fact, constitutionally eligible to hold the office. Anyone questioning his background, citizenship or allegiance was irrationally labeled a “birther” or “a racist.”

* * *

Harris’s Wikipedia page states that she spent her formative years in Montreal, Canada, where her mother worked as a cancer researcher in association with McGill University, which is borne out in Dr. Harris’s obituary. However, Kamala Harris’s Senate biography arguably implies that she was raised in Oakland and not Canada. Whether or not her mother became a Canadian citizen while living in Canada with her young daughters for 16 years remains an open question, and, by extension, whether or not Harris herself was ever considered “Canadian” in order to attend school there.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10115

Post by bob » Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:45 pm

P&E comment:
Vlado Petric* wrote:Please to explain why some people of 1803 say that President must be native citizen?
*
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10116

Post by bob » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:49 pm

P&E: Protests Mark Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings:
“THEY BROUGHT LUNCH”

Shortly after 9:30 AM on Thursday, Shannon Bream of Fox News reported that a group of protesters had “taken over” Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office in the Russell Senate Building to show their opposition to the nomination of U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh on what would be the third day of confirmation hearings.

The hearings were marked by loud disruptions in the Hart Senate Office Building from their outset just after 9:30 AM on Tuesday in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. While most senators attempted to continue speaking over the protesters, others stopped until the disruptors were removed from the room by the U.S. Capitol Police.

* * *

The Capitol Police did not respond to The Post & Email’s request for comment on the process by which protesters were removed from the Hart Building on Tuesday.
Rondeau's being FOAD'ed is newsworthy!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 487
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Re: The Post and Email

#10117

Post by dunstvangeet » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:11 pm

For the "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" clause, you might want to take a look at the juris prudence in the accompying "within the jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment. Plyler v. Doe is a good place to start.

Texas basically passed a law denying the funding from schools for illegal immigrant children (I believe that these were actually children who are illegal immigrants themselves, and not the citizen children of illegal immigrants). Some public school districts started charging tuition of $1,000 a year to illegal immigrants to recover this funding.

As part of their defense on this law, the State of Texas actually argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jursidiction" of the state, and therefore had no equal protection guarenteed to them by the 14th Amendment. So, the law that was treating them unequally was not actually unconstitutional. Both the Majority Opinion and the Dissent rejected this notion that illegal immigrants were not within the jurisdiction of the state. From the majority opinion: "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful." From the dissent: "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to immigrants who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state."

In order to strip children of illegal immigrants from being citizens, you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment. None of this "well, illegal immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" crap that the Supreme Court has already struck down at least once.



Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: The Post and Email

#10118

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:20 pm

Thanks Dunst.



User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2628
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10119

Post by woodworker » Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:01 pm

The people arguing that such categories of people are not "subject to the jurisdiction" really don't understand what that means and what the consequences of their position are. Subject to the jurisdiction basically means that the state (whatever level of government at issue, fed, state, local) has sovereignty over you and has, among many other rights and powers, the right to lawfully take your liberty away if you don't follow the state's rules. Generally, the biggest category of persons exempt from being "subject to the jurisdiction" are foreign diplomats -- because nations long ago realized that if they didn't exempt other nations' diplomats, etc., their how diplomats would be held hostage essentially. But disclaiming that a government is not sovereign over you doesn't mean that you are not subject to the jurisdiction -- no as long as the government has the power to deprive you of your liberty.

Now, as to the consequences -- if someone is not subject to the jurisdiction, that means that they can walk into a bank, kill all the tellers and steal all the money without any legal sanction. After all, if they are not subject to the jurisdiction then what is the basis for saying they did anything illegal. Stupid typical RWNJ thinking.


Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9409
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10120

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:08 pm

woodworker wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:01 pm
The people arguing that such categories of people are not "subject to the jurisdiction" really don't understand what that means and what the consequences of their position are. Subject to the jurisdiction basically means that the state (whatever level of government at issue, fed, state, local) has sovereignty over you and has, among many other rights and powers, the right to lawfully take your liberty away if you don't follow the state's rules. Generally, the biggest category of persons exempt from being "subject to the jurisdiction" are foreign diplomats -- because nations long ago realized that if they didn't exempt other nations' diplomats, etc., their how diplomats would be held hostage essentially. But disclaiming that a government is not sovereign over you doesn't mean that you are not subject to the jurisdiction -- no as long as the government has the power to deprive you of your liberty.

Now, as to the consequences -- if someone is not subject to the jurisdiction, that means that they can walk into a bank, kill all the tellers and steal all the money without any legal sanction. After all, if they are not subject to the jurisdiction then what is the basis for saying they did anything illegal. Stupid typical RWNJ thinking.
:yeah:

To be clear as to just how broad "subject to the jurisdiction" is:
The term is conventionally taken to exclude members of an invading army. However, children born to service members of a foreign military who are stationed in the USA for whatever reason (and there are quite a few foreign military personnel stationed here at any point in time in various capacities) are US citizens at birth.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: The Post and Email

#10121

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:38 pm

woodworker wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:01 pm
:snippity: :snippity:

Now, as to the consequences -- if someone is not subject to the jurisdiction, that means that they can walk into a bank, kill all the tellers and steal all the money without any legal sanction. After all, if they are not subject to the jurisdiction then what is the basis for saying they did anything illegal. Stupid typical RWNJ thinking.
It goes both ways. Poot thinking requires the state to respect their "rights", both real and imagined while they, the poots, can declare themselves to be not subject to the law. They forget that being subject to the jurisdiction of the state also means enjoying the protection of the state. Thus, if a person could actually remove him/herself from the jurisdiction of the state while remaining in the state, that person would also be removed from the protection of the state, with the same rights as rats.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10122

Post by bob » Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:07 pm

Rondeau's site is mostly tumbleweeds ... except for the comments on birther articles; e.g.:
Ray Chandler* wrote:Didn’t the courts already rule that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen?
Gary M Wilmott wrote:I am working on a project as we speak that deals with Cruz specifically. Hope to reveal very soon. It won’t be a game changer but it will be interesting. Stay tuned.
* * *
Rattlerjake wrote:[It] doesn’t even matter whether Cruz’s mother became a Canadian citizen or not. Because lyin’ Ted was born in Canada, if either of his parents was a US citizen, under the US Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the citizen parent still must submit a form 600 (Application for Certificate of Citizenship) for a child born outside the US. Currently lyin’ Ted is STILL an illegal alien unless he can show that Certificate of Citizenship! Sadly, it is not just the left who indulges in hypocrisy and double standards, but many on the right who refuse to hold our representatives to the same laws. As an adult, Cruz can still file a form 600 with the appropriate paperwork, BUT if his mother became a Canadian citizen then he is INELIGIBLE to file that form and must naturalize like any other alien. Texans have proven that they could care less about the Constitution because they have allowed Cruz to continue to hold office and even under Texas law it is a felony to hold congressional office without being a citizen.
* * *
Russ wrote:Ohell’s brother Malik Obama posted that Ohell was born in Kenya he posted his real birth certificate on Twitter… posted around March 2017 …. check it out … born in Kenya, his half brother born in Kenya would know.. also his father was never a citizen, another reason Ohell not Natural born per Sen Resolution SR511 which says for McPain must be born American soil and parents (plural) citizens at birth… Ohell a usurper, never qualified to be president
* * *
Kerchner wrote:I posted a new item in my blog today with new dissertations added for two more non-natural born Citizen politicians, often mentioned as seeking high national office. They are known to us here but not to others. So I’m spreading the word. See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/ ... -eligible/ I also dropped an excerpt of it over in the very active Free Republic discussion forum. Drop on by to that forum too if you wish to join the fun there: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3686017/posts
Laity wrote:Harris is NOT a “Natural born [U.S.] Citizen”. Read my recently published book “Imposters in the Oval Office” on the issue of eligibility to be President and/or vice-president.
And a bonus from Kerchner's blog:
Edward C Noonan wrote:Please be informed that Ms. Kamala Harris was the CA Attorney General who defended Socialist Debra Bowen, the CA Secretary of State when I sued in court to have Mr. Soetoro removed from the POTUS ballot in CA. Harris argued that the Sec of State did not have the Constitutional duty to enforce the US Constitution!
So we can put Noonan in the "not dead yet" (NADT) catagory of "where are they now?"


*
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10123

Post by bob » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:28 pm

P&E comments:
Mike Volin wrote:Here we go again. During the 2016 election it was a mockery of our constitution and a free for all for anyone wanting to run for President most notable Ted Cruz who was “BORN IN CANADA” and I ask who challenged this? No excuse for Ted Cruz none. What Congressman? What Court? What main stream media outlet? More important what other candidate at the time? Start asking questions, keep calling your representatives every day.

Please join me and many others. Sign up on my mailing lists it is located on my site.
Gregor Anghel wrote:Some courts ruled Cruz is a natural born citizen.

New Jersey (same judge ruled Obama a natural born citizen back in 2012)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... c256b96170

Pennsylvania

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politic ... ty-lawsuit
* * *
Rondeau wrote:Yes, we know, Comrade.
At least Rondeau is learning:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10124

Post by bob » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:29 pm

P&E: CDR Kerchner (Ret) Discusses Recent Obama Birth Certificate Comment:
WHY NOW?

For anyone who might have missed it, retired Navy commander, former lead plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama & Congress, et al and “natural born Citizen” researcher Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret) was a guest on the Peter Boyles radio show this morning to discuss Obama’s recent rally speech he gave in Orange County, CA Saturday while stumping for Democrats running for Congress.

During his remarks, Obama decried Donald Trump’s policies and called for “sanity” to return to American politics. He also invoked his “birth certificate,” referring to the image posted on the White House website in 2011 found to be a forgery by a five-year criminal investigation. Another brief remark referred to the September 11, 2012 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed as a “conspiracy theory.”

[ * * * ]

The link to the show is here[*]: http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/0 ... -sep-2018/
Neither Rondeau nor Kerchner can be bothered to summarize the :yankyank: . :yawn:


* Actually, here; de minimis.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10125

Post by bob » Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:34 pm

P&E: Thanks for Your Retweets and Shares!:
OUR AUDIENCE IS GROWING, THANKS TO OUR READERS

The Post & Email noted on Thursday morning that a number of you are retweeting, “liking” and sharing our articles with your followers, which helps to grow our website traffic and the general public’s knowledge of the Obama birth certificate issue as well as other government corruption.

Please continue to feel free to post links to our articles on message boards, your own websites or blogs, forums such as Google+ and LinkedIn and to retweet and share links with your email lists. There are icons at the end of each article which make it easy to do so.
But I thought the president said that social media was suppressing conservatives? :think:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”