Kamala Devi Harris Birthers - Ammunition: Birthers v Reality: Round 2

[Foggy]

Hidden Content

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

[much ado]

Hidden Content

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

[bob]

Oddly (Narrator: Nothing odd about it) is that neither of the birth certificates mention anything about the citizenship of the parents.

On the bird-fire site, there are a few people who insist Harris' father is Irish-Indian, and was merely born in Jamaica.

Doesn't anyone care about the Constitution?

There are also a few more people proclaiming the two-citizen-parents "rule."

[Gene Kooper]

Come on Foggy. Birth certificates have the place of birth of the parents, not their citizenship. Otherwise, there would be two forms of birth certificates in the U.S. One that says "Birth Certificate" and one that says "Anchor Baby Birth Certificate!"

Geezo, weezo, I thought you knew about the falsity of ABBCs!

[Luke]

Hidden Content

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

[bob]

P&E: An Open Letter to Robert Kennedy Jr – Challenge the Constitutional Eligibility to be POTUS and CinC of ‘Anchor Baby’ Kamala Harris:

I have heard rumors you might be suspending your campaign. You should not suspend your campaign; but instead file federal and/or state lawsuits challenging Kamala Harris’ constitutional eligibility for the office of President (POTUS) and Commander in Chief (CinC).

As a candidate for the same office as Harris, you have legal standing (to which many others have not been granted) to legally challenge Kamala Harris in the federal and state courts; and thus force SCOTUS to take up the issue once and for all on the merits; and decide who is a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) of the United States kind of Citizen per the original intent, understanding, purpose, and WHY when the founders and framers chose that national security protection term; and placed it only into Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

* * *

The Democrat Party and Harris’ operatives have used extensive “law-fare” against you to sabotage and suppress your candidacy and to try to keep you off the ballot in many states. It is time for you to return the “legal fire”; and legally, constitutionally challenge Kamala Harris’ constitutional eligibility status as she is only an “Anchor Baby” kind of Citizen at best.

* * *

This “Anchor Baby” and birthright citizenship issue needs to be finally and legally addressed at the U.S. Supreme Court level. Congress has never had the guts to do it.

* * *

Mr. Kennedy, you would be doing a very courageous and noble thing for your country at this time; and sort of “falling on your political sword” so to speak; if you would take upon yourself all the name calling of “birther” and “racist” charges dished out by the mainstream media via their smears and personal attacks which are piled onto any of those who bring up the “nbC” constitutional eligibility issue; by forcing the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the constitutional truth and original intent re the true meaning and kind of Citizen that a “natural born Citizen” of the United States is, per the founders and framers original intent and purpose for choosing it.

* * *

This possibility of usurpation of POTUS and CinC by the constitutionally ineligible “Anchor Baby”, Kamala Harris, is of great concern to me as a retired military officer.

* * *

FYI, I’m almost 80 years old and a retired military officer; and I am asking you Robert Kennedy to do the noble thing for this country and for our constitution at this critical, survival-at-stake time in our nation’s history.

I pray to God you will listen to this calling and will take up the challenge I have suggested herein, and challenge in federal and/or various key swing-state courts Kamala Harris’ constitutional eligibility. She is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States! She is not even close. And if the shoe was on the other foot, she/they would do it to you!

I hope Kerchner has girded himself for his inevitable disappointment.

[Dr. Ken]

[Suranis]

Hidden Content

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

[bob]

That's some vintage birther quote mining.

[realist]

That's some vintage birther quote mining.

Says it's unavailable but when I clicked through to X it appeared.

Good stuff. Old days and all that.

[Suranis]

[shannon]

Everything old is derp again...

GOP group claims Kamala Harris is ineligible to be president due to Dred Scott decision

"In an official resolution, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) – a 90 year-old GOP-aligned organization that counted former President Ronald Reagan among its membership — took the position that Harris should not be allowed to hold the office of president, citing several "precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases." Among the six cases the NFRA cited was the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, which is regarded as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions of all time, if not the worst ever.

"Several states, candidates, and major political parties have ignored this fundamental Presidential qualification, including candidates Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy and Kamala Harris whose parents were not American citizens at the time of their birth," the NFRA's resolution read.

The resolution — which attorney Andrew Fleischman posted to the social media platform Bluesky — cited Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which pertains to only natural-born U.S. citizens being eligible to serve as president. The NFRA argued that the phrase "natural born citizen" is defined as "a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth."

[bob]

P&E: NFRA on the Natural Born Citizen Issue:

Well, whatta ya know. Yet another source – this time an established, tax-exempt IRS “527 Organization” rather than an individual human being – raises the issue of the likely compromised “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) bona fides of Kamala Devi Harris. The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (“NFRA”) has brought the issue back into the public square with its 39-page “Platform and Policy Document” directly questioning Harris’s constitutional eligibility.

Really, nothing you've seen before. "DeMaio" highlights some of the NFRA's errors, and makes "his" own.

And, of course:

Until someone with a backbone and legal “standing” steps up to the plate – perhaps Speaker Mike Johnson or now Trump-supporter Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. – the vast majority of the electorate will remain indifferent and simply…, move along…, since there’s “nothing to see here.”

The Founders would disagree. There is plenty to see, if only one’s eyes are opened.

Birthers this cycle seem content to expect someone else to file their beloved eligibility challenges.

[bob]

Kamala's father, Donald J. Harris, was born in 1938 in St. Ann Parish, Jamaica. This certificate was discovered in the archives of St. Ann's Hospital in Jamaica. A girl named Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964.

Reuters: Fact Check: Fake Jamaican birth certificate used to discredit Harris’ eligibility for presidency:

A fake Jamaican birth certificate has been shared on social media alongside the repeated false narrative that Kamala Harris is ineligible to be president.

A false post on Facebook, opens new tab alleges that Harris’ birth certificate was found “in the archives of a Jamaican hospital” and said it “casts doubt on the legitimacy of her presidential candidacy” because it supposedly shows Harris is not a natural-born citizen.

* * *

The document says it is a “true copy” of an entry in the Registrar General’s Department of Jamaica, where registered births are stored.

The explainer details why it is fake, but my favorite part is the comparison of it to the known birth certificate of the famous Jamaican, Bob Marley.

[Volkonski]

I still think there is something fishy about Trump's foreign-born mother.

Is there really such a place as the "Outer Hebrides"?

[Foggy]

I think it surrounds the Inner Hebrides.

[Sam the Centipede]

In-her He-brides? Waddafug is goin on in them eye lands??

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

The Outer Hebrides implies the existence of the Inner Shegrooms.

[bob]

"For completeness": Reuters: Fact Check: Fake ‘Kamal Aroush’ narrative used to discredit Harris’ eligibility for office:

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential bid has revived false allegations online about her eligibility to run for office, including a years-old disinformation narrative that she is a man named “Kamal Aroush.”

Social media posts, opens new tab use real and altered images of Harris to present a false narrative that she is “Kamal Aroush,” a British citizen born in Benghazi, Libya. The posts imply, and others explicitly state, that Harris should be disqualified as the Democratic presidential candidate.

* * *

Reuters imported the two authentic images of Harris into FaceApp, and clicked the option to change the “gender,” which returned, opens new tab similar results, opens new tab to the images in social media posts.

* * *

The “Kamal Aroush” narrative has spread online since at least 2020. It stems from a QAnon campaign, according to a 2021 report, opens new tab by The Wilson Center about gendered and sexualized tropes that targeted women politicians on social media.

[RTH10260]

I still think there is something fishy about Trump's foreign-born mother.

Is there really such a place as the "Outer Hebrides"?

Outing He-Brides ? Shirley implies some LGBT+ connotation

[pipistrelle]

Nice that QAnon worked in Benghazi, isn't it?

[p0rtia]

Anybody know any lawyers?

[Ben-Prime]

Anybody know any lawyers?

This guy's actually not far from me. I should go offer my IANAL support if the first event is before I leave for my next (3-year) assignment overseas.

[keith]

ChatGPT Fact Check and Debunking of Chuckle's garbage article:

I just wanted to add a couple of paragraphs of discussion that seems to have been left out:

Further to the 'Dual Citizenship' issue.

The citizenship laws of other countries have no bearing what-so-ever on United States law. Some countries claim as citizens anyone related to a citizen within two generations. This has nothing to do with USA citizenship law or the Constitution.

American law simply ignores the existence of foreign citizenship law in relation to American Citizens. To do otherwise would be admit the possibility that some foreign country could, say, declare that Donald Trump was a citizen of their country and thus disqualify Mr. Trump as a dual citizen exactly as you would have V.P. Harris disqualified. Countries like Greece, for instance, could demand that the USA extradite and deliver up Greek grandchildren who are born in the USA for military service that Greek citizens are obliged to perform. When those children go to visit their Grandparents in Greece (that is, they have, at least temporarily, entered Greek jurisdiction, where American citizenship law and jurisdiction does not apply) they may well be called up.

Further to the 'Jurisdiction' issue.

From Wikipedia: Jurisdiction (from Latin juris 'law' + dictio 'speech' or 'declaration') is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels (e.g., local, state, and federal).

Thus, in the 14th Amendment 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the person was subject to the LEGAL AUTHORITY of the United States at the time of their birth. Everyone who is on US soil is subject to the legal authority of the United States - EXCEPT officially credentialled diplomats, members of invading armies, and (at least once upon a time) Untaxed Reservation Indians. Even if you are a foreign citizen, say a German tourist or an undocumented alien sneaking across the border, as long as you are on US soil you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Summary

The language of the 14th Amendment is simple and unambiguous: 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.

Crucially, the 14th Amendment is silent on the citizenship status of the parents of a child with regard to the "All persons born" except, of course, that they need to be under the jurisdiction, which eliminates children of Diplomats and Invading Armies.

Finally, A person who is BORN a US citizen and therefore does not require a naturalization process to become a citizen is what is known as a "Natural Born Citizen".

[bob]

P&E: Presidential Eligibility Suit: Harris not a “natural born Citizen”:

NEW YORK CASE TO BE APPEALED TO U.S. SUPREME COURT

On August 26, Schuyler County, NY resident and registered voter Montgomery Blair Sibley uploaded his “Complaint for Declaratory Relief” filed August 12 in New York Supreme Court naming as defendant Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky “solely in her official capacity as Co-Executive Director of the New York Board of Elections and New York’s Chief Election Official.”

* * *

In his complaint, Sibley, a former practicing attorney, alleged “that Kamala Harris is ineligible to appear on the November 5, 2024, New York Election Ballot” on the grounds she is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution for the president and commander-in-chief.

* * *

After filing the complaint and paying the requisite fee, Sibley wrote, Judge Christopher P. Baker simply dismissed it, then hastily corrected his error when challenged. “Supreme Court Judge Baker on August 20, 2024, without giving me notice or an opportunity to be heard, entered his Order sua sponte dismissing the Complaint,” Sibley wrote on his Substack. “The next day, August 21, 2024, I responded with my Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal. Two hours later, Supreme Court Judge Baker ‒ realizing his grotesque violation of due process ‒ through his law clerk contacted me and directed me to file a Notice of Hearing for Thursday, August 29, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Watkins Glen, New York” (emphasis original).

* * *

The hearing took place as scheduled. On Friday Sibley told this writer, “As I expected, the Judge refused to vacate his dismissal order. Now I will file my notice of appeal on Tuesday and prepare an emergency petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope to have that filed by September 7. Then the question of Kamala Harris’ eligibility will be in front of them.”

Sibley's complaint and the court's dismissal.

Scoop Rondeau "forgot" to mention this important point: The court summarily dismissed Sibley's complaint because in New York the only method to challenge a candidate is via a petition under a specific Election Code section (which this wasn't).

Sibley's blog substack has this tell:

Last, I need help covering the court fees and printing costs associated with this expedited litigation run. To help in that regard I have set up a GoFundMe campaign to raises no more than the $2,800 I expect will be needed to march this issue to the United States Supreme Court. If you can support my effort in any amount, I would greatly appreciate it.

"P.S.: SEND MONEY."

Sibley thus far has raised $125 (total) from exactly one donor (John Siegel).

And, yes, Sibley may file a Rule 11 SCOTUS petition now. (As always, this is 'Merkia; anyone can file anything.) But Sibley's failure to exhaust his claim in the state courts will be another reason for SCOTUS to deny it. Not that SCOTUS will say anything other than DENNIED.

Bonus: P&E: Opinions Relating to Orders and the nbC Issue:

"THE FOUNDERS WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED"

* * *

lthough not specifically addressed in the formal Rules of Procedure of the Supreme Court, in practice, however, the Court recognizes a protocol whereby an individual Justice can prepare and issue his or her comment on the summary disposition of cases by orders, e.g., if a Justice wants to dissent from the denial of certiorari or concur in that denial. This mechanism is called an “Opinion Relating to Orders.” And while it is the rule that the denial of a certiorari petition is not a precedential ruling on the merits of a case, under the protocol at issue, an individual Justice is free to comment on the denial either by way of concurring in its denial or by dissenting from its denial and explaining his/her reasoning for concurring or dissenting.

* * *

Your humble servant previously addressed the issue here in the context of the filing of (and subsequent denial of) a petition for certiorari filed in USSC Docket No. 20-1503, captioned “Laity v. Harris.” When, as expected, Mr. Laity’s petition was denied, and his petition for rehearing thereafter denied, Justice Thomas “passed” on the invitation to author an “opinion relating” to the denial of certiorari in Mr. Laity’s case.

While Justice Thomas could have confined any such opinion to the “litigant standing” component, it also presented an opportunity for him to invite persons with clear standing to bring such an action, allowing the issue to be presented to the Court on the merits finally, for binding precedential adjudication. Your humble servant has in the past suggested that persons with clear litigant standing include current Speaker of the House Michael Johnson and Presidential candidate (in states where he has not suspended his campaign) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. So far as known, neither of those persons has acted…, and each day that passes without any such action brings the Republic closer to the potential of again installing a constitutionally-ineligible person into the presidency.

* * *

There may yet be another opportunity prior to the November general election for an “Opinion Relating to an Order” denying a certiorari petition on the nbC issue (see [Sibley's suit]), but again, with each passing day that such an opinion or denial of certiorari order does not take place, the likelihood of a change in sentiment grows more remote. So do not hold your breath for any movement on the issue.

"DeMaio"'s whine was posted five hours after the article about Sibley.

I have no idea why "DeMaio" (and others) see Thomas as their savior, as he's offered them nothing other than his years-old "evading the issue" joke.