The dregs of birther remainders.

[Sam the Centipede]

Sibley is the idiot kilt wearer, isn't he? So the handgun would go in a special sporran-holster?

I think the pests would flee when they saw this creep approaching, his kilt and parts flapping in the breeze.

[Reality Check]

Sibley is the idiot kilt wearer, isn't he? So the handgun would go in a special sporran-holster?

I think the pests would flee when they saw this creep approaching, his kilt and parts flapping in the breeze.

Yes to both. While looking up what the outcome of his Fifth Amendment case I discovered that Sibley wrote a "book" (all of 97 pages) in which he fantasized about winning his case and forced a Constitutional Convention. He calls it a future history. He is hailed as a hero apparently. I know it is stating the obvious to say a Birther is a fruitcake but Sibley is a special sort of fruitcake.

An Account of the First Convention of the States to Propose Amendments

[Sam the Centipede]

Gracias RC!

I don't think I knew about Sibley's fantasy fiction. However rich I ever become, I guarantee I will never have $19.99 available to purchase a copy!

The back cover (as seen on Amazon) has a photo of Sibley in kilt with bagpipes. Two bags of wind.

It is disappointing that no other birthers or nutters have been excited enough by Sibley's exposition to review it on Amazon. Surely Rondeau should have reviewed it, and favorably? Oh dear, now perhaps bob will review his archive of birther nonsense to reveal that indeed the harpie has drooled over it?

[Flatpoint High]

Gracias RC!

I don't think I knew about Sibley's fantasy fiction. However rich I ever become, I guarantee I will never have $19.99 available to purchase a copy!

The back cover (as seen on Amazon) has a photo of Sibley in kilt with bagpipes. Two bags of wind.

It is disappointing that no other birthers or nutters have been excited enough by Sibley's exposition to review it on Amazon. Surely Rondeau should have reviewed it, and favorably? Oh dear, now perhaps bob will review his archive of birther nonsense to reveal that indeed the harpie has drooled over it?

uilean or war?

[bob]

While looking up what the outcome of his Fifth Amendment case I discovered that Sibley wrote a "book" (all of 97 pages) in which he fantasized about winning his case and forced a Constitutional Convention. He calls it a future history. He is hailed as a hero apparently. I know it is stating the obvious to say a Birther is a fruitcake but Sibley is a special sort of fruitcake.

Sibley serially published it on his blog. On Oldbow, I covered some of the chapters.

My favorite parts were the smut. Sibley's Mary Sue protagonist had a female assistant* who couldn't handle the size of Sibley's big brain and threw herself at him.

* Or maybe she was opposing counsel. Don't remember, can't be bothered. But I remember the ravishing.

[Reality Check]

Sibley serially published it on his blog. On Oldbow, I covered some of the chapters.

My favorite parts were the smut. Sibley's Mary Sue protagonist had a female assistant* who couldn't handle the size of Sibley's big brain and threw herself at him.

* Or maybe she was opposing counsel. Don't remember, can't be bothered. But I remember the ravishing.

I recall that now! It was nauseating. He really has a hate on for Merrick Garland too.

I watched the oral argument Sibley had posted. Sibley started into his diatribe and one of the judges stopped him and said they had thoroughly read his brief. The knew all about his record too.

[northland10]

Gracias RC!

I don't think I knew about Sibley's fantasy fiction. However rich I ever become, I guarantee I will never have $19.99 available to purchase a copy!

The back cover (as seen on Amazon) has a photo of Sibley in kilt with bagpipes. Two bags of wind.

It is disappointing that no other birthers or nutters have been excited enough by Sibley's exposition to review it on Amazon. Surely Rondeau should have reviewed it, and favorably? Oh dear, now perhaps bob will review his archive of birther nonsense to reveal that indeed the harpie has drooled over it?

uilean or war?

Straws aka, glove pipes

[bob]

My favorite parts were the smut. Sibley's Mary Sue protagonist had a female assistant who couldn't handle the size of Sibley's big brain and threw herself at him.

It was his assistant, but Sibley's Mary Sue believed in no sex before marriage the end of the Constitutional Convention. But once the LARPING was over:

► Show Spoiler

“Rachel, this is a great view. It is odd to see the Hall empty below, just the chairs and desks testifying to the debates held here over the last months.”

Rachel called from around the corner. “Come see the view from here”, she said.

As Blair rounded the corner he saw Rachel unbuttoning the buttons on her blouse.

“You always said, ‘Women need a reason, Men need a place.’ Well, now that our professional relationship is at an end, I have a reason and we have a fitting place, don’t you think?”

[bob]

P&E: Haley: “I am Not Interested in Vice President”:

"I'M GOING TO MAKE YOU PROUD"

* * *

As would be expected from the mainstream media, no questions arose about [Haley's] eligibility in accordance with the “natural born Citizen” requirement of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

* * *

The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, requires all vice presidential candidates to meet the constitutional qualifications of the president.

On January 8, Trump reposted on his TruthSocial account a graphic from an article at The Gateway Pundit providing analysis of an editorial written by law clerk and former Trump administration intern Paul Ingrassia positing that Haley is not a natural born Citizen and is in “flagrant defiance of the Constitution’s textual prerogative” with her campaign.

Ingrassia’s legal analysis of the term the Framers placed in the Constitution solely for the president generated immediate blowback from the mainstream media, which characterized Trump’s promotion of Ingrassia’s article as a “false claim” or “false ‘birther’ claim,” referring to when Trump questioned Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.

Ingrassia’s article additionally drew the attention of “War Room” host Steve Bannon, who served as a senior advisor in the Trump White House and interviewed Ingrassia last week on another subject. Toward the end of the interview, Bannon pledged to explore the “natural born Citizen” topic from Ingrassia’s viewpoint, although he did not say when that might take place.

In a follow-up article published January 19, Ingrassia opined it is important to discover whether Haley’s parents were “lawful residents” at the time of her birth in addition to when they became U.S. citizens.  “The burden of proving citizenship must be placed squarely on Haley’s campaign,” Ingrassia wrote. “If the question ever gets litigated, any objective court should make a determination of the lawfulness of Haley’s parents’ residency status based on the laws of 1972, and not attempt to make equivocations between the generally understood meaning of citizenship some fifty years ago, and its commonly understood meaning today: one that recklessly (and suicidally) confers citizenship upon anyone who makes it to these shores, including the anchor babies of illegal aliens. The Biden regime’s interpretation of citizenship would have been abhorrent to the framers of the Constitution, all our Founding Fathers, and nearly every generation in American history up until five minutes ago, who toiled long and hard for the privileges and immunities of citizenship. Simply because that longstanding precedent is ignored and mocked with impunity today does not make it right, nor does it abnegate the urgency to enforce our laws…”

CNN reported it sought and obtained comment from Ingrassia about his position on “natural born Citizen” but that a “legal consensus” disagrees with it.

Thanks to the 14th Amendment, . . . anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a citizen.

There is no mention of “natural born Citizen” in the 14th Amendment, and its phraseology includes the qualifier “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

On that issue, Ingrassia wrote:

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states as follows: “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.” Several points must be underscored: First, this amendment deals with the basic privileges and immunities of American citizenship – and, specifically, the citizenship status of the approximately four million slaves freed because of the Union’s victory over the Confederacy in the Civil War. The architects of this amendment were patently not contemplating Presidential Eligibility, the domain of Article II, and, notably, the only such article in the entire Constitution where the term “natural-born citizenship” arises.

Those who otherwise like to conflate the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment with questions of Presidential Eligibility cite the landmark Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). There, the Supreme Court decided that the child of two lawfully residing Chinese immigrants should be conferred all the privileges and immunities of citizenship on the basis of birthright.

[Reality Check]

Inglassia limited commenting on his first Substack crap article to paid subscribers only. I am sure he will soon follow on the second.

[bob]

CNN reported it sought and obtained comment from Ingrassia about his position on “natural born Citizen” but that a “legal consensus” disagrees with it.

P&E: The Haley nbC Issue and the CNN Spin:

The blowback continues on the Substack article posted by one Paul Ingrassia positing that Nikki Haley is constitutionally ineligible because she is likely not a natural born Citizen (“nbC”) as required by Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. . . .

As expected, Mr. Trump’s post triggered the usual suspect blather of “birtherism,” “xenophobia,” “misogyny,” “racist dog whistle” and, of course, the omnibus general “Orange Man Bad” pejoratives.

So it isn't getting "traction"?

That paragon of objective journalism – CNN – has now jumped into the fray with this: What to know about false ‘birther’ claims about Nikki Haley | CNN Politics. The article is by one Marshall Cohen, a CNN reporter based in Washington, D.C., and whose bio sketch states that, among other assignments, he “covered the January 6 insurrection.”

* * *

The Cohen article’s first sentence boldly states that “[F]ormer UN Ambassador Nikki Haley is eligible to serve as US president, despite right-wing ‘birther’ questions about her natural-born citizenship [sic]….” Really? Missing from Cohen’s CNN bio is any reference to his possession of a law degree or that he moonlights as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. BTW, Ingrassia graduated from Cornell Law School, juris doctor, in 2022. Young, but unlike Cohen, possessed of a J.D. degree from, arguably, a better than average law school.

Yet "DeMaio" remains unimpressed by those who teach constitutional law at the best law schools.

Finally, Mr. Cohen quotes one Rick Hasen, who he characterizes as “a leading election law scholar” and a professor at the UCLA School of Law. Professor Hasen is quoted: “It has long been accepted that anyone born on United States soil is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to serve as President. Although some anti-immigration forces have sought to change this rule, the question is not in legal doubt.”

Hasen also clerked at the 9th (for a Reagan nominee).

In short, both CNN and Professor Hasen – along with a boatload of “de Vattel Deniers” – need to heed the advice of the caveman in the classic Geico Insurance “Apology” commercial from the 1980’s: “Yeah, maybe next time do a little more research.”

Like Paul Ingrassia has done.

Ingrassia doesn't even discuss the eligibility cases that show he's wrong. And, like "DeMaio," hides behind blocks and moderation.

"DeMaio" wastes a lot of energy disparaging the "boatload" that disagree with Ingrassia, yet "DeMaio" doesn't quote anyone who agrees with Ingrassia.

[Luke]

"Good afternoon, Eastman, Ingrassia, Taitz & DeMaio, how may I help you?"

[realist]

"Good afternoon, Eastman, Ingrassia, Taitz & DeMaio, how may I help you?"

[Sam the Centipede]

"Good afternoon, Eastman, Ingrassia, Taitz & DeMaio, how may I help you?"

"Oh, is Mr. Apuzzo no longer with you? I'm sorry to hear that."

[Reality Check]

It is funny that these morons hate Haley and love Trump. Policy wise there is no difference. But IMO Haley's chances of winning the general election against Biden are much better than Trump's. So Dregs keep on hating Nikki and loving the orange freak. I am fine with that.

[bob]

P&E comment:

Hopefully the constitutionally ineligible Nikki Haley will drop out of the race this week after her losing in NH. If she continues in the race and gets soundly beat in SC, a state where she was the governor, it will be a major political embarrassment to her imo and impact any future plans for a long time. Maybe she has it coming to her for her ignoring the U.S. Constitution presidential eligibility clause.

We all here have done our part to educate the American electorate about the issue.

This is some vintage birther chuffing: We didn't need to file eligibility lawsuits because we convinced voters not to vote for an "ineligible" candidate.

[realist]

P&E comment:

Hopefully the constitutionally ineligible Nikki Haley will drop out of the race this week after her losing in NH. If she continues in the race and gets soundly beat in SC, a state where she was the governor, it will be a major political embarrassment to her imo and impact any future plans for a long time. Maybe she has it coming to her for her ignoring the U.S. Constitution presidential eligibility clause.

We all here have done our part to educate the American electorate about the issue.

This is some vintage birther chuffing: We didn't need to file eligibility lawsuits because we convinced voters not to vote for an "ineligible" candidate.

Yes, they've been quite the success in that regard.

[Reality Check]

If Haley is smart (big "if") she will stay in the race. The chances that Trump will be convicted of a felony or croak before the convention are much, much greater than her chance of winning enough delegates. Even after the convention Trump might have to drop out and then the RNC could pick her as a replacement.

[noblepa]

If Haley is smart (big "if") she will stay in the race. The chances that Trump will be convicted of a felony or croak before the convention are much, much greater than her chance of winning enough delegates. Even after the convention Trump might have to drop out and then the RNC could pick her as a replacement.

Even if the OSG is convicted of a felony, he won't be sentenced or begin serving a prison term before the election or the inauguration. If he were to win the election (oops, just threw up in my mouth a little), he would delay it until after Jan. 20. He would definitely NOT drop out. He would go for broke and gamble that he wins and will be able to pardon himself.

This would, of course, create a Constitutional crisis. Who would step in to stop him from taking office? The courts would probably kick the can down the road to Congress, saying that Presidential elegibility is a political question.

As the Democrats, and most sane legal commentators pointed out in the aftermath of Trump's efforts to stay in office, Congress and the VP are authorized to count the electoral votes, period. As I understand it, the House's authority to challenge the electoral votes is limited to questioning if the electors were properly certified and if their votes were properly cast.

And, of course, if he is inaugurated, the first thing he will do is to pardon himself. At the very least, he will stop all federal prosecutions of himself and maybe his friends.

What _could_ Congress do? There is nothing in the Constitution that says a convicted felon can't be President.

So, in the worst case scenario, in which he wins the election after being convicted, what can be done? This is definitely unexplored ground.

[bob]

"Good afternoon, Eastman, Ingrassia, Taitz & DeMaio, how may I help you?"

P&E: Ingrassia Interviews with Stone on “NBC”:

law clerk and writer Paul Ingrassia is interviewing with Roger Stone on his “TheStoneZONE” broadcast on Twitter on the subject of the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, clause 5 presidential requirement of “natural born Citizen.”

* * *

At 8:39, fellow guest Troy Smith asked Ingrassia who might take action if Haley is in fact “ineligible” to the presidency.

“Anybody could challenge her eligibility” if involved in the political process, Ingrassia replied, including former president and leading 2024 Republican candidate Donald J. Trump. However, Ingrassia acknowledged that with civil and criminal hearings ongoing in four jurisdictions, Trump likely “has his hands full.”

At 8:42, Stone raised the question of former 2024 Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who withdrew from the race following the Iowa caucus results in which he garnered approximately 8% support, endorsing and campaigning for Trump thereafter.

* * *

At 8:46, Stone invited Ingrassia on his Sunday WABC show, heard in the Tri-State area of New Jersey, Connecticut and New York, at WABCradio.com from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.

ANYBODY, Paul!

[bob]

P&E comment:

This is very good that finally some of the big conservative movers and shakers of the news in one of the closer circles who know Trump are putting Paul InGrassia on their shows. And imo Trump has signaled the nbC issue can be talked about and their fear of the name calling like “birther” and “racist” and the ridicule factor are have little to no effect anymore.

It is so cute when Kerchner lies to himself!

I would like to see Steve Bannon have Paul back on his podcast again and spend a good solid hour on the nbC issue. Then after getting Steve Bannon and his crew totally onboard for this constitutional fight, maybe get Dan Bongino on board too. As they say, “The worm is finaly turning.”

"Any day now! VVIPs with standing!" --Every birther for the past 15 years.

[Sam the Centipede]

Then after getting Steve Bannon and his crew totally onboard for this constitutional fight, maybe get Dan Bongino on board too. As they say, “The worm is finaly turning.”

Now is the time! Birthers need to achieve better penetratiom of their target groups of VIPs and politicians! Perhaps they should make and distribute a DVD?

Oh wait, … yeah … mm.

[much ado]

If Haley is smart (big "if") she will stay in the race. The chances that Trump will be convicted of a felony or croak before the convention are much, much greater than her chance of winning enough delegates. Even after the convention Trump might have to drop out and then the RNC could pick her as a replacement.

I don't think she has to be very smart to have figured that out. I think that is her plan. There are several reasons Trump may not survive as a candidate until November. None of them are very likely, but there are so many of them that it is very worth her hanging on. And she, herself, can keep beating the "His cognitive decline is serious and obvious" drum.

However, the pressure on her to drop out is going to become intense.

[Foggy]

I agree that birthers are worms.

[Reality Check]

[
I don't think she has to be very smart to have figured that out. I think that is her plan. There are several reasons Trump may not survive as a candidate until November. None of them are very likely, but there are so many of them that it is very worth her hanging on. And she, herself, can keep beating the "His cognitive decline is serious and obvious" drum.

However, the pressure on her to drop out is going to become intense.

You make good points. I thought DeSantis would hang in longer for the same reason. I suppose when you are out of money your campaign it's over these days. DeSantis joins a growing list of Republicans trying to outdo Trump being Trump who failed. Why have a poor copy of evil when you can have the devil himself?