Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

The dregs of birther remainders.

These people are weird, but we like to find out what weird people are doing and thinking. It's a hobby.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#901

Post by bob »

Reality Check wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:50 pm Did we know that Carl Gallups ended his radio show Freedumb Friday last year?
Yup; ended in 2021, actually. :bag:

Gallups, post-Freedom Friday and post-first Twitter bane, has reverted to his pre-birther self, i.e., doomspeaking prophesies. :yawn:

It is as if Gallups is trying to pretend he never was a birther.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#902

Post by bob »

P&E: Response to “Lucius Boggs” Critique on Presidential Eligibility:
DeMaio wrote:The recent comments above by one “Lucius Boggs” in response to the article, “The Role of States and ‘POPE’s’ in Presidential Eligibility Determinations” are many and lengthy, thus necessitating longer than normal responses, below.
Boggs wrote:The author appears to ignore the current case law.
“Current case law” is not the same as precedential Supreme Court case decisions.
Boggs wrote:A number of state courts have already ruled on this question and they all appear to read US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as authoritative if not binding precedent.
The commenter appears to ignore that for that very reason, the POPE proposal makes eminently rational sense, since WKA did not involve the “natural born citizen” issue. Moreover, it must be recalled that once, the decisions in Scott v. Sandford and Roe v. Wade were claimed to be both authoritative and binding precedent…, and look what happened to them.
Boggs wrote:Would any legislative attempt to override these decisions be ruled unconstitutional?
Recalling that WKA by its own terms confined its holding to analysis of the 14th Amendment’s application to determine whether the person was a “citizen,” all of the rest of the opinion discussing a “natural born citizen” is “dicta, pure and simple.” Moreover, the commenter conspicuously fails to identify the provision of the Constitution, specifically, which would purportedly be violated.
Boggs wrote:[E]ven Professor Titus (a two-citizen parent advocate) recognized that Wong Kim Ark (not Minor) is the precedent which controls this issue.
Because Justice Gray’s WKA opinion is fundamentally flawed . . . this is yet another compelling reason to deploy the POPE option.
Boggs wrote:In his amicus brief in Rudy v Lee (2014-1056) Professor Titus does not rely on Minor v Happersett as a precedent but rather points out that the choice is between Justice Gray’s opinion or Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent in Wong Kim Ark. It is clear from his argument that he recognized that even though Justice Gray did not specifically declare Wong a natural born citizen the effect of the decision made him eligible to be president.
The commenter misleads by failing to note that the amicus brief filed by Professor Titus did not “recognize” that “the effect of the [WKA] decision made Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president” or that WKA “controls this issue.” That claim is a festooning of what Professor Titus actually argued and constitutes an unsubstantiated extrapolation of his actual amicus argument. It is worthy of analogizing to selected “products” of the Congressional Research Service.

The amicus argument was solely that WKA, in addressing the 14th Amendment, Justice Gray’s (flawed) majority opinion clarified the statement made in Minor v. Happersett regarding the “citizen” status of persons born to aliens here, as to which “there had been doubts.” Indeed, the amicus brief noted that Justice Fuller’s dissent was “cogent” (amicus brief at 16).

Finally, the commenter omits the fact that the amicus brief argued (correctly, in your humble servant’s view) that certiorari should be granted to address the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. The lower trial court had dismissed (with the dismissal affirmed) Mr. Rudy’s claim that Mr. Obama was not a natural born Citizen on the grounds that the matter constituted a “political question” and was thus “non-justiciable.”

The matter addressed in the amicus brief, therefore, was not directly aimed at the merits of the natural born Citizen issue. Instead, it focused on the abstract jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and urged the granting of Mr. Rudy’s petition for certiorari. Thus, if the amicus brief were a court opinion, its comments about WKA and Minor would be deemed obiter dictum. Naturally, the Supreme Court denied certiorari…, you expected something else?
Boggs wrote:There are two cases that should be read as both influenced Justice Gray’s opinion and are cited by him.

Lynch v Clarke 1844 New York Chancery Reports
“6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”
Nowhere in the records of the U.S. Supreme Court will one find the name of Chancellor Nathan Sanford, author of the opinion in Lynch, as being included among the various Justices of the Supreme Court.

Opinions of judges from courts inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court may be “authoritative” within their local jurisdictions and even “persuasive” as a general matter. But they are not pronouncements which become a part of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence and, tangentially, the “supreme law of the land.”

Accordingly, Lynch – like Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana – articulates noting more than the opinion(s) of judges of inferior courts of appeal. This only underscores the allure of POPE laws: at the “end of the day,” the objective is to force the nbC issue into the Supreme Court, if not by a private litigant – where standing issues would arise – then under Art. 3, § 2, Cl. 5.

That provision mandates that “[t]he judicial Power [of the Supreme Court] shall extend… to Controversies between two or more States….” (Emphasis added). The Founders understood the difference between the words “shall” and “may,” and selected the former for use in the Constitution.
Boggs wrote:In re look Tin Sing 21 F. 905 (D.Cal. 1884)

Citing Lynch v Clarke – “It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.”

[ . . . ]

The author of the opinion in Look Tin Sing with [sic: was?] Justice Stephan [sic: Stephen] Field who was also on the Court for the Minor v Happersett decision.
As to the decision in In re Look Tin Sing, Judge Field – while parroting as a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge portions of the opinion of Chancellor Sanford in Lynch – joined, as a Supreme Court Justice, the unanimous decision in Minor.

The Minor decision, of course, articulates the proposition that the Founders knew well that a natural born citizen was a person born here to two parents who were already citizens. It also noted that there had been doubts about whether similarly, persons born here to foreigners were natural born citizens…, but also that “no doubts” existed as to those born here to citizen parents. Instead of dissenting, as might have been expected given his prior opinion in In re Look Tin Sing, Justice Field joined in the unanimous Minor decision, suggesting that he understood — unlike some — the difference between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.”
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#903

Post by bob »


It has been six years, and Gillar's still touting the "verified by two experts" line. :rotflmao:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#904

Post by bob »

P&E: Government Lies:
Harry Accornero* wrote:What will it take for the American people to wake up to the lies that the Left has been telling Americans over the last six years?

Here are just a few of the lies to consider
:yawn: snipped.


*
Harry Accornero is a former New Hampshire state representative from Laconia who now resides in Virginia.
Accornero also was one the main birthers (along with DeLemus) who encouraged Taitz's "historic" eligibility challenge in New Hampshire in 2012.

E.g.: P&E (in 2011): Bombshell: Elected Official Names Obama in Commission of Treason:
“I COULDN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE”

New Hampshire State Rep. Harry Accornero has publicly named Barack Hussein Obama in the commission of the crime of treason. As far as we know, he is the first elected official to do so.
The voters showed Accornero the door after but one term. :rotflmao:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5572
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

The dregs of birther remainders.

#905

Post by Luke »

Harry's an idiot. Here he is during the hearing (gosh, I remember this hearing):





Naturally, "birther" Orly Taitz is involved, all the way from California, stirring up the elected rabble that represents portions of New Hampshire. On Friday, November 18th, the state's Ballot Law Commission, part of its executive branch, voted unanimously in a public session to keep the president's name on ballots. A rational choice, no? Here is how The Daily Caller described what happened next:

Following the decision, members of the state legislature and upset citizens verbally attacked state Assistant Attorney General Matt Mavrogeorge, causing members of the commission to flee to an office, lock the doors and call police.

"Saying a treasonous liar can go on our ballot?" shrieked Republican state Rep. Harry Accornero after the decision. "You're going to have to face the citizens of Laconia. You better wear a mask."

"It just makes me want to throw up," exclaimed Republican state Rep. Susan DeLemus. "Let's just bury the Constitution now and have a funeral."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... re/249170/


You bring up a great idea though, Bob. I'm concerned Foggy may have already watched all the videos I posted for him... maybe we should all chip in to get him an autographed DVD set? Amazing there are still some left and still on Orly's stye. Also great she still has the "Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012" bank account open to cash the check... sadly the runorlyrun website is kaput.


Historic DVD Now Available! DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling. --------- To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.


Taitz DVD.JPG
Taitz DVD.JPG (50.08 KiB) Viewed 749 times


If Wifehorn puts the DVD player and teevee way up high where Foggy can't get to it, he'll have hours of entertainment. :P
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#906

Post by bob »

Comments:
Lucius Boggs wrote:After several attempts to post a fuller response were defeated by the blog’s moderation policy, here is one only highlighting the author’s errors. . . .
Kerchner wrote:The Editor of this newspaper, Sharon Rondeau, does a difficult but excellent job. As you should know by now, this is a moderated forum for an online newspaper.

In my opinion, in my reading of your prior comments here, your prior attempts were likely rejected as tedious misleading, repetitious, legal type misinformation and/or other typical misinformation by omission OBOT tripe. But as you have seen if you are succinct and focused with your attempt at legal citations directed at the article’s author, as with your comment above, you get through.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how persons of your mindset as seen through your comments here (if you truly believe what you suggesting in your writings), that you can believe that the founders and framers of our founding documents and the U.S. Constitution would have intended to allow a person born with foreign influence and citizenship on them via dual or triple Citizenship at birth and allegiance at birth to more than one country to be allowed Constitutionally to serve as the Commander in Chief of our military as the President. And you surely are aware that abrogation of the original intent meaning “natural born Citizen” clause in our U.S. Constitution has been under attack for many decades since it restricts who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. . . .

Lucius Boggs, in my opinion, you are either a true Marxist Progressive ideologue manipulating language to undermine the Constitution or a paid operative with some far-left PR operations tasked with doing what you do here and elsewhere.

I believe you don’t care what the founders and framers intended. You are simply here to spread misinformation and mis-educate any newbie readers here on the topic of being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States in order to continue the agenda of both major national political parties and major media goals to abrogate that national security term in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the presidential eligibility clause, of our U.S. Constitution to be able to run candidates of their choice and ignore the NBC term.
Kerchner still hasn't figured out that maybe he's just ... wrong? :think:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5572
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

The dregs of birther remainders.

#907

Post by Luke »

Another TRIUMPHANT WEEK for Sharon Rondeau and The Post & Email, the comments almost flooded in! Maybe Foggy can get some tips from Rharon on how to generate such excitement and user-generated content.


Rondeau Triumph.JPG
Rondeau Triumph.JPG (104.3 KiB) Viewed 695 times
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#908

Post by bob »

Lucius Boggs wrote:After several attempts to post a fuller response were defeated by the blog’s moderation policy, here is one only highlighting the author’s errors. . . .
P&E: “Citizenship” vs. “natural born Citizen”:
DeMaio wrote:NONSENSE ELEVATED TO AN ART FORM

Your humble servant again responds to comments from “Lucius Boggs” . . . .
Boggs wrote:Assistant Vice-Chancellor Lewis H. Sanford wrote the Lynch v Clarke opinion not Chancellor Nathan Sanford.
The correction is noted, but a new question arises: does the name “Lewis H. Sanford” appear anywhere in the records of the U.S. Supreme Court as being one of the Court’s Justices?
Boggs wrote:In re Look Tin Sing (1884) came after Minor v. Happersett (1875) not prior to.
Some of the confusion here may arise because Justice Stephen J. Field’s opinion in In re Look Tin Sing – with Supreme Court Justice Field apparently sitting by designation on the panel for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of California from which he came – is inconsistent with the prior USSC decision in Minor which he joined.

Curiously, Justice Fields’ opinion in In re Look Tin Sing does not even cite, much less discuss, the decision in Minor or the circumstance that he joined in the unanimous decision.

Moreover, if he had changed his mind after signing on to the decision in Minor – which opinion emphasizes that “[w]e [in the plural, including Justice Field] have given this case the careful 1:consideration its importance demands…”and, nine years later, thought that the natural born citizen “never any doubts” discussions in Minor, even if considered to be dictum, was no longer correct – one would, at minimum, have expected him to acknowledge that fact in In re Look Tin Sing. But he did not.

This may have been because In re Look Tin Sing was a habeas corpus case rather than a 14th Amendment constitutional case. But the fact remains that USSC decisions – including Minor – that arise in the context of the 14th Amendment addressing “citizens” and “citizenship” rather than who may (or may not) qualify as a “natural born Citizen” under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, do not directly answer the presidential eligibility question. All the more reason to try to get a justiciable “POPE” law “case or controversy” before the Court.
Boggs wrote:I would suggest that “Joseph DeMaio” read Justice Curtis’ dissent in Dred Scott (paying attention to his statement on “natural-born citizen”)
Justice Curtis said in his dissent (15 L.Ed. at 725): “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.‘ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” (Emphasis added) The focus was on “citizenship,” not on who might or might not be a natural born citizen.
Boggs wrote:then read Justice Field’s dissent in the Slaughterhouse Cases (paying attention to his statement on Justice Curtis’ dissent).
Justice Field said, 83 U.S. at 38: “In the Dred Scott case this subject of citizenship of the United States was fully and elaborately discussed. The exposition in the opinion of Mr. Justice Curtis has been generally accepted by the profession of the country as the one containing the soundest views of constitutional law. And he held that, under the Constitution, citizenship of the United States in reference to natives was dependent upon citizenship in the several States, under their constitutions and laws.” (Emphasis added) The focus was on “citizenship,” not on who might or might not be a natural born citizen.
Boggs wrote:Next read Justice Miller’s opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases (paying attention to his statement on “subject to the jurisdiction”)
Justice Miller said, 83 U.S. at 52: “But the fourteenth amendment does define citizenship and the relations of citizens to the State and Federal government. It ordains that ‘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 where they reside.’ Citizenship in a State is made by residence and without reference to the consent of the State.” (Emphasis added) Once again, the focus was on “citizenship,” not on who might or might not be a natural born citizen.
Boggs wrote:and then reading Justice Field’s opinion [in] In re Look Tin Sing (paying attention to his statement on “subject to the jurisdiction”).
Justice Field’s statement on ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ is found at 21 F. 906: “The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that ‘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…” and “[t]he words … mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country.” (Emphasis added). Once more, the focus is on “citizens” and “citizenship.,” not on who might or might not be a natural born citizen.
Boggs wrote:After finishing those, maybe [DeMaio] could answer whether he thinks Justice Field might be one of the “authorities” who “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
After perusal of those opinions, your humble servant accepts the invitation to opine on whether Justice Field “might be one of the ‘authorities’ who ‘include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.’

Your servant first responds that, whether or not Justice Field might be included in the “de Vattel Denier” group of persons being addressed in Minor, the reality is that such classification is irrelevant. This is so because each of the suggested opinions, at bottom, focuses on the neologism “natural born citizenship.”

[T]he term “natural born citizenship” is a neologism, a synthetic, concocted term having meaning only in the mind of the one doing the concocting.

Stated otherwise, “natural born citizenship” is a neologism seeking to blend the concept of a “natural born Citizen” under a de Vattel § 212 definition and as set out in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution with the decidedly different terms “citizen” and “citizenship” addressed in the 14th Amendment.

By attempting to label concepts of “citizenship” as being merely the plural form of a “natural born citizen” as defined by de Vattel, the neologism “natural born citizenship” is hatched and peddled to the electorate and general public – including the Congress – as the purported justification to equate a “14th Amendment “citizen” with an nbC: they are, in the Left’s twisted view, synonymous.

This is nonsense elevated to an art form. Nowhere in the Constitution is the term “natural born citizenship” found. Moreover, the attempt via semantic gymnastics to manufacture and market a meaningless term intended to “settle” the nbC presidential eligibility conundrum is juvenile and simply underscores the value of the POPE alternative.
"DeMaio" is very impressed with his strawman, "natural-born citizenship." Despite "citizenship" just meaning "the status of being a citizen." :roll:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#909

Post by bob »

P&E comments:
[some jerk*] wrote:Is there any indication any governor or legislator agrees with any of this?
Nikita's_UN_Shoe wrote:If they do agree with the wisdom of Joseph DeMaio, they can kiss their political career goodbye. Otherwise, it’s unConstitutional dirty political business as usual.
[some jerk*] wrote:Unsurprising that anyone agreeing with “DeMaio” would be shown the door by the voters.
Kerchner wrote: In my opinion, if anyone has any legislator or governor interested in hearing more about this, I would not post it hear in this public forum and tip off any OBOT Marxist far-left living Constitution types lurking here such that they can quickly work behind the scenes to try and get to them via powerful establishment political party operative folks and lobbyists in both parties that they may know and try to intimidate or cancel culture any such legislator or governor out of proposing it and/or trying it, even before they even make a decision to introduce legislation. We should just wait until those government officials who may be interested, decide to make their effort on this idea public. I know I’m not going to tell anyone who I am or am not talking to about this idea.

Loose lips sink ships!
[some jerk*] wrote:Regardless of possible motivations, no governor or legislator has given any public approval of these ideas. Nor has any proposed legislation in support of these ideas been introduced.

The wait may be very long.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#910

Post by bob »

P&E: The Goebbels Corollary:
DeMaio wrote:"MISLEADING BY OMISSION"

Introduction


Paraphrasing Third Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels: “If you are going to tell a lie, make it a big one, as no one will believe a small one, and repeat it over and over, because eventually people will come to accept it as the truth.”
Oh, the irony.
For purposes of this offering, however, let us label the careless but “presumptively” non-malicious use of words leading to false or erroneous conclusions and the intentional omission of facts and words to be similar to, but something short of actual “lies.” The current analogous term would be “misinformation.” For now, let us call it the “Goebbels Corollary.”
"DeMaio" is a horrible, horrible writer.
[Y]our servant, prompted by The P&E’s intrepid Editor acting on a reader’s alert, now addresses how that paragon of principle and Internet search engine protocols – Google – treats the issue of what, purportedly, it “informs” billions of people what it wants them collectively to believe constitutes a “natural born Citizen.” The treatment by others will also be addressed.

* * *

To begin with, when one types into the Google search box the words “natural born citizen,” this is what pops up (at least today):
Google wrote:The Supreme Court has stated that, properly understood, the definition of ‘natural-born’ covers anybody who was a US citizen at birth, meaning they did not have to go through naturalization at a later time. . . .
* * *

Interestingly, halfway into the article, one finds the source of the Google claim, where Jesus Rodriguez – as opposed to a Supreme Court Justice – asserts:

“The Supreme Court has stated that, properly understood, the definition of ‘natural-born’ covers anybody who was a US citizen at birth, meaning they did not have to go through naturalization at a later time. In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, [“WKA”] the Court explained that, in British common law, ‘natural-born British subject’ meant ‘a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth. […] Any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.’ ”

* * *

Accordingly, if Google believes that the decision in WKA [ . . . ] is the proper source for the broad statement it repeats from Mr. Rodriguez and makes regarding the Supreme Court’s articulation of a rule simply not found in the case…, Google is wrong. I know…, I know…, heresy.

Interestingly, the Rodriguez article makes no mention of another law review periodical article on the nbC issue authored by Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, both formerly of the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office. The Clement-Katyal article appeared six years earlier, roughly corresponding with the date that Senator Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for the presidency: “On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen.”

* * *

To its credit, Google at least includes (listed in third place) the Clement-Katyal article. On the other hand, out of “about 88,300,000 results,” the first 99 entries stacked on the Google “natural born citizen” search page each advocate – as of the date of this post – the “citizen-by-birth/citizen-at-birth” theory. One needs to drill down through 99 “narrative-compliant” counter articles before finding a single one voicing a “de Vattel § 212” theory of what the term was intended to mean. . . . .

That the Goebbels Corollary principle of carrying forward the notion that the “concept” of 1 Stat. 103 has survived despite the repeal of the statute is again confirmed by examination of a web page maintained by the Library of Congress.
LoC wrote:While the Constitution does not define natural born Citizen, commentators have opined that the Framers would have understood the term to mean someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. [Footnote to Clement-Katyal article omitted.]
* * *

To understate the matter, this assertion by the Library of Congress is flat wrong, and, accordingly, flat misleading. It is pure misinformation, yet it is being marketed by the Library of Congress, without challenge, as reliable “Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.” Once again, this constitutes an example of the Goebbels Corollary in action.

* * *

Conclusion

The nbC issue is at the same time complicated, yet simple. Arguments can be fashioned and advanced on both sides of the controversy. Your humble servant adheres to the “de Vattel § 212” theory while Google, Messrs. Clement, Katyal and the folks in charge at the Library of Congress are just as wedded to the WKA “citizen-at-birth/citizen-by-birth” nbC theory.
"DeMaio" shows that the Library of Congress, two alums of the Solicitor General's office, and the first 99 Google hits prove him wrong.

From this, "DeMaio" concludes they are all wrong. :brickwallsmall:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5572
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

The dregs of birther remainders.

#911

Post by Luke »

What a fabulous researcher aka "DeMaio" is not. The first link isn't to something written by Google ofc, it goes to Ted Lieu's House page: https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/in- ... ter%20time.

And it's in his news section, it's an article from Vox from Apr 12, 2021: https://www.vox.com/22379697/natural-bo ... -president
The “natural-born citizen” ceiling
The Capitol rioters’ apologists are still eligible to be president — and immigrant lawmakers who fought to hold Trump accountable are not.
The article talks about how Lieu wouldn't be eligible to be president:
Equating birthplace with allegiance dates back to feudal times
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution explicitly states that “no Person except a natural born Citizen […] shall be eligible to the Office of President,” among other age and residency requirements.

The clause has been the subject of much contemporary debate since Trump peddled false, racist conspiracies about former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in the run-up to the 2008 election. Similar baseless doubts have been raised about Cruz’s qualifications given his birth in Canada to an American mother, and more recently, about whether Kamala Harris could hold the vice presidency as the daughter of immigrants.

The Supreme Court has stated that, properly understood, the definition of “natural-born” covers anybody who was a US citizen at birth, meaning they did not have to go through naturalization at a later time. In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court explained that, in British common law, “natural-born British subject” meant “a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth. […] Any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.”

Because the Court adopted this definition, it has never had to rule on the issue of an immigrant president — even if the prospective commander in chief had lived here for the overwhelming majority of their life.

Lieu, for instance, was born in Taiwan but arrived in Cleveland, Ohio, with his family when he was 3 years old, first taking up residence in the basement of a woman’s home as his parents cobbled together a livelihood reselling flea market purchases. The sole accident of his birth disqualifies him from ever rising to the country’s highest office.

nbc.JPG
nbc.JPG (101.9 KiB) Viewed 535 times
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#912

Post by bob »

orlylicious wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 12:00 am What a fabulous researcher aka "DeMaio" is not. The first link isn't to something written by Google ofc, it goes to Ted Lieu's House page
To be fair to DeMaio, he did discuss how Google's top result relied on Lieu's House page. I snipped that because the crux of "DeMaio"'s argument is that Google (read: reality) favors the definition that everyone (but birthers) uses.

In his typical convoluted fashion, "DeMaio" gets in his own way when trying to make the rather easy (and obvious) point that Wong Kim Ark is the basis of commonly accepted meaning.

* * *

P&E comment:
Kerchner wrote:You sound happy in your negative toned pronouncement on the Ogen [sic] and DeMaio proposal.

Why don’t you do something positive in words and/or deeds to help make it happen so that SCOTUS will finally have to take on the issue, instead of them avoiding the issue as Justice Thomas said in a sub-committee hearing, and decide it once and for all, which ever side prevails in that decision. Doing that is SCOTUS’ job. To interpret terms and clauses in the U.S. Constitution when there is a dispute on such . . . .

The progressive left and the constitutional conservative right should both be working to get a ripe case on this subject before SCOTUS in a way to force them to take up this issue and decide the “natural born Citizen” term in a holding of that court that is directly applied to whom is eligible under the “natural born Citizen” term to serve as President and Commander in Chief, and per the 12th Amendment the VP too. Don’t you agree?
I'm tickled Kerchner believes some jerk* has the power to persuade SCOTUS where Apuzzo (RIP; NADT) could not. :towel:


* :whistle:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#913

Post by realist »

Kerchner wrote:
In my opinion, if anyone has any legislator or governor interested in hearing more about this, I would not post it hear in this public forum and tip off any OBOT Marxist far-left living Constitution types lurking here such that they can quickly work behind the scenes to try and get to them via powerful establishment political party operative folks and lobbyists in both parties that they may know and try to intimidate or cancel culture any such legislator or governor out of proposing it and/or trying it, even before they even make a decision to introduce legislation. We should just wait until those government officials who may be interested, decide to make their effort on this idea public. I know I’m not going to tell anyone who I am or am not talking to about this idea.
OBOTs are so powerful in Kerchner's feeble mind. :lol:
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#914

Post by bob »

realist wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 11:33 amOBOTs are so powerful in Kerchner's feeble mind.
It is so much easier for Kerchner to convince himself there's a vast network of shady operatives hanging on his every word rather than accept that no one agrees with him because he's just wrong and dumb.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9517
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

The dregs of birther remainders.

#915

Post by Foggy »

It would take one Obot less than half a work day to review everything written on the P&E for a week. No vast network needed. There aren't enough birthers to form a bridge team anymore.

Umm, I mean, Oh Noes, they're going to stop blabbing their plans? Does that mean we'll only be able to outsmart them for another thousand years? :think:

:panic:
Some things are simply too fast, or too relentless to avoid. Like the North Carolina rain.

Or the future.
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5572
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

The dregs of birther remainders.

#916

Post by Luke »

Foggy wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 12:03 pm It would take one Obot less than half a work day to review everything written on the P&E for a week. No vast network needed. There aren't enough birthers to form a bridge team anymore.

Umm, I mean, Oh Noes, they're going to stop blabbing their plans? Does that mean we'll only be able to outsmart them for another thousand years? :think:

:panic:
OBOTs are so powerful in Kerchner's feeble mind. :lol:

Wait! Are we panicking... or powerful? I'm confused and that's stressful! Reaaaaalist fix it!
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#917

Post by bob »


Gillar spends a lot of time on Twitter, saying outrageously trollish things just for the attention.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#918

Post by bob »

P&E comments:
[some jerk*] wrote:As there’s no indication any presently serving legislator or governor agrees with any of this, in what states is there a sufficiently motivated and supported electorate that will attempt to qualify for a ballot initiative?
DeMaio wrote:Assuming, for the moment, that there is “no indication any presently serving legislator or governor agrees with any of this” — your servant has not yet checked — the commenter poses a good question, also one which your servant cannot answer. Your servant can assure the commenter, however, that the only way to ensure that no initiated POPE effort will succeed is to abandon at the outset any effort or attempt. . . . .
[some jerk*] wrote:Can’t abandon what was never started.
DeMaio wrote:So that means one can never abandon hope?
[some jerk*] wrote:Hope can be abandoned.

And it should be abandoned when hoping for prospects that will never occur.

One could, for example, hope that the Philadelphia Eagles will be acknowledged as the actual winners of the last Super Bowl. But that won’t happen, regardless of how much hope is given to that prospect.
Is the metaphor too subtle? :think:


* :whistle:
Image ImageImage
Dave from down under
Posts: 3891
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

The dregs of birther remainders.

#919

Post by Dave from down under »

far too subtle... you aren't dealing with the sharpest tools.. actually quite blunt tools.. thicker than a brick sorta tools.. who are tools... :oldman:
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2154
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

The dregs of birther remainders.

#920

Post by Reality Check »

bob wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 6:50 pm P&E comments:
[some jerk*] wrote:As there’s no indication any presently serving legislator or governor agrees with any of this, in what states is there a sufficiently motivated and supported electorate that will attempt to qualify for a ballot initiative?
:snippity:
The one thing these cowardly morons will never do is agree upon any basis for of success of their arguments. Have they won a single court case? Convinced one legislator to sponsor a bill or even take a public stand on their theory? Their only answer is that they are right and the entire legal community is wrong. Apuzzo was probably the poster child for this false form of argument. I can write more words than you so I win.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#921

Post by bob »

Reality Check wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:50 pmConvinced one legislator to sponsor a bill or even take a public stand on their theory?
The closest they got was when the Arizona Legislature passed that birther bill in 2011, and Brewer(!) vetoed it. And even that only would have required proof of U.S. citizenship.
Their only answer is that they are right and the entire legal community is wrong.
Which is why "DeMaio"'s latest is so unintentionally hilarious: he shows that basically everyone disagrees with him. And his conclusion is that they are all wrong. :crazy:

Apuzzo was probably the poster child for this false form of argument. I can write more words than you so I win.
"DeMaio" has taken up that tactic. But, unlike Apuzzo, "DeMaio" never ventures past Rondeau's wall of moderation.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 1819
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:19 pm

The dregs of birther remainders.

#922

Post by Sam the Centipede »

bob wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:06 pm
Apuzzo was probably the poster child for this false form of argument. I can write more words than you so I win.
"DeMaio" has taken up that tactic. But, unlike Apuzzo, "DeMaio" never ventures past Rondeau's wall of moderation.
Apuzzo could be amusing on his own sites, spraying around the froth and fabulation that was his legal argument. I remember gently asking him to please cite other legal scholars or judges who agreed with his analysis. Oh dear, he didn't like that! He started ranting about how I knew nothing, I wasn't advancing an argument against his views, waaahhhh!, and became more agitated when asked again along the lines of "no, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I'd just like to hear what other legal authorities agree with your analysis." So he was self-aware enough to know that nobody agreed with his crap.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#923

Post by bob »

P&E: Author’s Response to “de Vattel Denier” Boggs:
DeMaio wrote:"INTERESTING, NO?"

* * *

[“de Vattel Denier” Boggs] includes a live link to a 1968 memo of the “Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service,” precursor to the Congressional Research Service, addressing the constitutional eligibility of then-presidential candidate George W. Romney as a “natural born citizen” (“nbC”). The memo is authored by one Vincent A. Doyle, a Legislative Attorney within the American Law Division of the Service.

* * *

Your servant contends, of course, that the Founders intentionally selected the de Vattel § 212 definition for the Eligibility Clause, a potential that even Mr. Doyle concedes in his memo.
Even for "DeMaio," this is quite the whopper, as the memo doesn't even mention Vattel. :doh:

The rest is nothing, like you've seen before.

* * *

Gillar blocked some jerk* on Twitter. :crying:

* :whistle:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#924

Post by bob »

Meanwhile, at the P&E

"DeMaio": The Banana Republic of Manhattan.

Tom Arnold: D.A. Alvin Bragg, You Just Indicted a “Ham Sandwich.” Let Me Tell You Where You Are Wrong.

So: a normal one. :towel:

You will be shocked, shocked! to learn the birther brain trbust each mentioned the big boss, Soros.

Bonus: American Politics – a Failing System?:
Harry Accornero wrote: It’s time to take America back. We need to throw OUT everyone who is in office, and then in two years, whoever is in the office, throw them out again and keep doing it until they realize they work for us!!
Thankfully the New Hampshire voters in 2012 did just that.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

The dregs of birther remainders.

#925

Post by bob »

:tinfoil: Kerchner's blog: Natural Born Citizen - A Presidential Eligibility Qualification Requirement in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution :tinfoil: :
by: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., P.E. (Retired) [...] ISBN: 978-0-91-733503-7

collection of essays on the "natural born Citizen" term in our U.S. Constitution. The "who, what, when, where, why, and how" the "natural born Citizen" term was put into our United States Constitution by the founders and framers. The book shows how the modern era progressive movement using faulty logic and sophistry has been conflating the term "Citizen at Birth" as being 100% identically and logically equal with "natural born Citizen". That identically equal argument is not true. The adjective "natural born" means something. It indicates a kind of Citizen created by the Laws of Nature and Natural Law, not a man-made law, act, amendment, or treaty granting citizenship at birth to a person or group such as 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 - Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth. A citizen created by man-made laws is not a "natural born Citizen". The "natural born Citizen" kind of Citizen is by far the largest subset of all Citizens of a country as shown with an Euler Diagram and analysis of English language grammar and logic of the two terms. The term "Citizen at Birth" tells the reader WHEN the person became a Citizen not the KIND of a Citizen. And there are five different kinds of Citizens mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. All "natural born Citizens" at Birth are "Citizens at Birth", but not all "Citizens at Birth" are "natural born Citizens". It's basic logic. A simple Euler Diagram is included as a graphic to visually explain this. The Progressive Movement conflates the two terms and enabled by the major media who are part of that movement does a disserve to our electorate and is treasonous to the Constitution. "Citizens at Birth" created by man-made laws are granted such Citizenship under the "Naturalization Powers" granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution and if a child is granted basic "Citizen at Birth" status under such a man-made law passed by Congress such as 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 - Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth, the person does not have to undergo the Naturalization process later in life as an adult. But a "Naturalized" Citizen they are even though most people don't understand that fact. The strong influence of Emer de Vattel's (1758, 1775,1797) legal treatise about the "The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law" on the key founders and framers is discussed. Vattel's enlightened proposals for a new form of government in Volume 1 of his legal treatise was used to justify the revolution and in their framing of a new Constitution to form a more perfect union of the 13 sovereign and independent original states, into a stronger nation of states united, i.e., The United States, is also discussed. 70+ pages. Printed on demand. Plastic comb bound for ease in the opening, laying flat, flipping pages, and laying on copier platen to make copies of selected pages.
Kerchner is going FULL LAITY and is publishing a vanity press. :dance:

Kerchner helpfully provides the title page, the dedication, and table of contents (and, unhelpfully, some sample pages which are just nothing, like you've seen before).

But the real gem is the 15-page introduction. Way too long copy over, but the OG Obots will lurve Kerncher's retelling of ancient history. Some of my favorite bits:
Kerchner wrote:[In late 2008, t]here was a massive network of either paid or volunteer operatives manning the gun ports of the internet 24x7 to immediately counter-attack and overwhelm or push aside with ridicule, personal attacks, blog scrolling, and other troll-type tactics targeting anyone and everyone in response to any attempt to get some hard questions addressed seriously about Obama and Obama’s life narrative, a narrative that was not adding up factually as the truth when one did some detailed research into it.

Sites like Wiki were heavily censored by Obama operatives and sympathizers. Yahoo Ask and similar sites were being monitored by Obama operatives and sympathizers and anyone posing questions challenging Obama's life narrative was reported to the moderators by multiple Obama operatives for picayune technicalities and exaggerated charges of violation of terms of service (TOS) and got the poster banned and the question deleted. They knew extremely well how to use the internet TOS system to keep critical information about Obama off the internet. I found out later that many of these operatives were lawyers and paralegals directly or indirectly associated with groups connected to the Obama campaign who knew how to write complaint emails and letters to the moderators and/or owners of these websites to get posters challenging the Obama narrative removed and banned. . . .

[In August 2008], I also started making financial contributions to [Berg's] effort and tried to help him via back-channel communications of things I was reading and learning. . . .

While comments [at “Greta Wire”] were allowed, the Obots (Obama Robotic Believers and Supporters – Paid or Volunteer) descended on her forum like a plague of locusts. One could not make any argument for common sense and try to get agreement that there should at least be an investigation of Obama without being attacked with ridicule and name-calling personal attacks (the racist charge was their favorite tactic) by teams of Obots. These Obots operated in these blogs and forums using a tag-team approach like a professional wrestling match. And their arguments and claims of objectiveness were just as fake. It was later learned that some of these Obots were active members of the media and members of the secret back-channel planning group for tactics to suppress the Patriots named "Journolist". It was allegedly disbanded. But likely it was reconstituted with another name on another platform. . . .

In California, an attorney named Orly Taitz brought a lawsuit against the Secretary of State of California. I contributed information and advice to her back channel as well as donating money to her to help fight the battle in CA. . . .

I started looking for someone to [sue Obama and Congress], a lawsuit enjoining Congress itself and the leaders of both chambers as defendants if Congress failed to properly vet Obama’s constitutional eligibility at the Joint Session in early January 2009. So looking around and seeing no one willing to tackle this approach after several days of pondering and praying over the issue, I decided the person to bring this lawsuit has to be me. I was being called to bring forth this lawsuit against Obama and Congress whether I liked it or not, and my officer’s oath demanded I answer that call. . . .
:yankyank:

But the best:
Kerchner wrote:I had gone down my list and I was just about at the end of my rope in finding an attorney when somebody said, "Did you see that Attorney Apuzzo is blogging on Orly Taitz’s site? Did you ever try to contact him?" and I said, "No, I did see a couple of his comments, but I never saw any way that I could contact him." The person offered to get me his address and phone number. I then called Attorney Mario Apuzzo that same day and told him what I wanted to do, that I was looking for a true Patriot to do it pro bono and file the suit before Obama was sworn in. I told him that if need be and could not get any financial contributors to the battle, I would if necessary cover all the out-of-pocket court costs and other such out-of-pocket expenses entailed with bringing the case.

This discussion occurred in the late afternoon or early evening of Friday, January 16th, and the inauguration was scheduled for noon, the next Tuesday, January 20, 2009. So there was a very short amount of time left, and he said he'd have to think about it and discuss it with his family because it was a very controversial and potentially dangerous thing (as we now call it “cancel culture” action), to bring a lawsuit like this given all the threats that were being thrown around on the internet and elsewhere toward the people who were standing up to ask these hard questions about Obama after he had won the popular vote and was being treated almost messiahlike since he won the election. He wanted 24 hours to think about it.

The next day I called him back, and he decided to take the case. At Attorney Apuzzo’s request, I faxed him copies of all my letters to the various members of Congress and the Executive branch and others as evidence of who I had contacted and to which I had not received any answer or response (not even a standardized form letter or acknowledgment of my correspondence to them) about investigating the constitutional eligibility of Obama. We worked together for the next three days via telephone and email on putting the legal complaint together, and we filed it at 2:50 a.m. on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009. I wanted the case filed before Obama was sworn in so that I was suing the President-Elect, who was still a civilian and had not yet been vested with the office, powers, and protection of the Presidency. My suit would be filed against President-Elect Obama, who had been confirmed by Congress, and Congress itself, and several other named defendants who were complicit in the unconstitutional and illegal acts in confirming Obama. The political process was over at the point in time my suit was brought.

As I said, the lawsuit was filed at 2:50 a.m. (the very early morning) on 20 Jan 2009 before Obama was planning to be illegally and unconstitutionally sworn in later that day. The case proceeded through the federal court system in the able hands of Attorney Mario Apuzzo who in my opinion is now the leading expert in the United States on Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the Presidential Eligibility Clause . . . .

Then the first of many mysterious and devious actions that have been observed in many cases filed in the federal courts against Obama happened in our case. Filed electronically early in the a.m. of Tuesday, 20 January 2009 as was mentioned earlier in this article, it was immediately assigned a case number and a judge's name (which happened to be the head judge) in Newark NJ, by the system assigned to hear the case. Attorney Apuzzo had the filing document, the judge’s name, and the receipt for the filing fee provided to him electronically early that a.m. So all was good. We had filed while Obama was still a civilian and President-Elect. Then the funny business started happening. Later in the day, Attorney Apuzzo called me and told me that he surprisingly had received an electronic message from the clerk of the court stating that the case had been assigned a new case number and filing time entered late in that same day, after Obama was sworn in, and a new judge had been assigned to handle the case in a different city from where he filed our case. It was transferred to Camden NJ. The head judge in Newark NJ did not want this "hot potato" case. And he had it transferred to another judge in Camden NJ. I said to Attorney Apuzzo I wonder what is up and why the head judge assigned this case to someone in Camden NJ and not simply to another judge in Newark NJ. We also learned that the case number assigned previously to the case was not simply voided but instead was reassigned to another case thus making it appear in the system that it was originally never assigned to our case early that morning many hours before Obama was sworn in.

I started thinking some “dirty tricks” were afoot and that maybe the head judge believed the one in Camden NJ was "better suited" for some unknown reason to handle the case rather than himself and instead of the usual randomly selected judge. And as I later learned more and more as my case proceeded, my initial thoughts and feeling about the transfer of the case were correct. The system was up to dirty tricks. Dirty tricks were indeed afoot and more were to come. Attorney Apuzzo brought these suspicious activities to the attention of the judge in our subsequent filings and even during a group meeting dinner event held by the Newark NJ judges with the attorneys that practiced in that court. No answer was received other than a blank stare from the head judge.
A NEW JERSEY SHIPPING CLERK SAVED OBAMA!!! :towel:

The "book" (it likely has fewer than 50 pages) is $12.95 (plus shipping and handling). And, at no additional charge, Kerchner will autograph it. :thumbsup:
Image ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “Other weirdos”