The dregs of birther remainders.

[bob]

P&E: Vivek Ramaswamy for President?:

IS HE EVEN ELIGIBLE?

* * *

So far my only problem with Ramaswamy is that he is Indian, not the American kind but the “India” kind of Indian, and it isn’t because he is of Indian descent or Hindu; it is a question of eligibility. . . .

The qualification to be a “natural born Citizen” is that the candidate’s parents had to be either born in the United States or have become naturalized citizens before the candidate was born. I don’t know if Ramaswamy qualifies as a natural born Citizen. I WILL NOT vote for any candidate who falls short of the qualifications laid out in the Constitution, regardless of how much I like their ideas and believe in their sincerity.

* * *

As I stated before, I don’t know if Ramaswamy is eligible to be president or not but will find out before any voting takes place, and I am positive that if he is not constitutionally eligible that devildemocommiecrats will be shouting it from the rooftops as soon as they discover it. His biography says he was born in 1985, making him eligible by age, and it gives a bit of information about his parents but doesn’t answer the question of his “natural born” status. If nothing else, maybe he can drag the ever-left-moving gop back to where sane people can count on them to follow the Constitution and not ignore it to curry favor with the marxists who make so much noise these days. I hope he is qualified as a natural born Citizen because I really like his ideas for making America great again.

I'll take the over on Ramaswamy's dropping out before the first primary.

[Luke]

Whew, we can all feel much better that Bob Russell doesn't hate Ramaswamy "because he is of Indian descent or Hindu". On the other hand, "Roving Reporter" aka OPOVV still uses every blog post to say that all Muslims should be forcibly removed from the USA immediately no matter what. Might be some fighting over at Rharon's.

Dammit, who spilled the beans to Russell? Did he get his paws on one of our sekrit documents? At least he doesn't seem as upset since it was 14 years ago and has moved on to other pursuits.

In 2008 devildemocommiecrats put barack obama up because he pledged to destroy America, knowing full well he did not qualify under the Constitution. The only qualifications devil-democommiecrats cite are that a candidate be an anti-American globalist radical dedicated to their one-world government new world order dictatorship, and fuhrer obama definitely fit their definition of “qualified to hold office.” I know they will vilify Ramaswamy because he is the polar opposite of fuhrer obama and very much like Donald Trump but younger and maybe not as verbally “offensive” to the perpetually offended leftist snowflake crybabies.

Vilify? Haven't even thought of him, haven't gone to look at who he is other than assuming he's an attention whore looking to sell something/increase his visibility via his astroturf campaign. But just thinking about how mean Bob was to us makes me offended and deeply hurt

[bob]

P&E: Natural Born Citizens Are The 3 Leaf Clover Kind of Citizens Not The 4 Leaf Clover Kind:

An article on citizenship kinds, especially for St. Patrick’s Day

Regarding the term “natural born citizen” (NBC) in our U.S. Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause and Principles of Natural Law, it is not a very limited club and category of citizenship. In fact it is exactly the opposite. NBCs are the most common, garden variety, most populous group or kind of citizenship that exists in a typical nation and is typically by far the most populous kind, group, or class of citizenship in virtually all nations.

Thus in our United States, we have a very, very large pool of NBCs from which to choose a President and Command in Chief of our military. We don’t need to search the ranks of those with foreign allegiances and foreign influence and foreign powers claims on them by birth such as Barack Hussein Obama and Kamala Harris have. The pool of NBCs is vast in our nation. As in this article’s title and analogy: “Natural Born Citizens Are The 3 Leaf Clover Kind of Citizens Not The 4 Leaf Clover Kind”, they are not rare but the most frequently occurring type in nature and a nation.” Those that are born in the country to two citizens (natural born, born, or naturalized citizens themselves) of the country when their child is born in the country, i.e., the “natural born citizens” are the largest group/kind of citizens in this country and in any nation. The natural born Citizen’s values and traditions in general define the culture of a nation.

An idea: Go buy a three leaf clover pin and pin it on your lapel. And when people ask you why you are wearing a three leaf clover pin, tell them what it signifies about being a “natural born citizen” of the United States and that Obama, Harris, Haley, Ramaswamy, Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal and some others seek high national office are not. Then explain why. Because their fathers were not a U.S. citizen when Obama or the others listed were born. They do not pass the “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

Kerchner must be a hoot at parties.

Bonus: P&E: Will Trump be “Arrested” Tuesday?:

The former Trump supporter [Michael Cohen] with whom The Post & Email briefly spoke just prior to the White House release of an image purported to be a PDF of Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” has reportedly been testifying to a grand jury in the latest Trump probe, which his former client claims is politically motivated and the result of the actions of “radical left anarchists.”

A decade-old brief exchange is newsworthy!

[bob]

Patriot Fire (reposted at the P&E): States Should Enforce “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement:

The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born citizen”. However, the term is not defined in the Constitution. Neither has a law or court ruling been made more exactly delineating the constraints of the term. The purpose of this post is not to re-hash the arguments about what “natural born citizen” means, but to outline a process that generates a legal standard for how it is enforced. The States are key to this process.

This proposal is to have one or more states enforce via legislation the implementation of the requirement in their state, according to their understanding of the requirement. If a candidate or political party sues the state, the Supreme Court will review the law and decide whether the details of the law are constitutional, according to the original intent of the framers. By this means, we can produce a general standard for the requirement that all states could adopt.

If only "questionable" candidates had been challenged in court in 2008. Or 2012. Or 2016. Or 2020.

* Yes, the racist Ogden.

[realist]

Patriot Fire (reposted at the P&E): States Should Enforce “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement:

The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born citizen”. However, the term is not defined in the Constitution. Neither has a law or court ruling been made more exactly delineating the constraints of the term. The purpose of this post is not to re-hash the arguments about what “natural born citizen” means, but to outline a process that generates a legal standard for how it is enforced. The States are key to this process.

This proposal is to have one or more states enforce via legislation the implementation of the requirement in their state, according to their understanding of the requirement. If a candidate or political party sues the state, the Supreme Court will review the law and decide whether the details of the law are constitutional, according to the original intent of the framers. By this means, we can produce a general standard for the requirement that all states could adopt.

If only "questionable" candidates had been challenged in court in 2008. Or 2012. Or 2016. Or 2020.

* Yes, the racist Ogden.

Yes, the challenges just re Obama are very few...

Birther Scorecard & String Cite: Birthers Win O - Lose - 220 - Pending - 6 - Total - 226 - Updated January 10, 2014

And then we just quit keeping count and keeping up with them.

[bob]

Yes, the challenges just re Obama are very few...

To his credit, Ogden doesn't moderate his comments section:

Some courts already have defined the meaning of natural-born citizen.

Various courts, for example, already ruled President Obama was a natural-born citizen because he was born in the United States.

Other courts already ruled Cruz is a natural-born citizen because he was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.

No, that’s not true. If so, be specific and show us a link. It never got into the courts.

It looks like the spam filter doesn’t like links.

Indiana state court ruled President Obama is a natural-born citizen in Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

Pennsylvania state court ruled Cruz is a natural-born citizen in Elliot v. Cruz, No. 77 M.D. 2016 (Penn., Mar. 10, 2016).

Any search engine should be able to locate the courts’ rulings.

So the system works.

*

Some jerk would tell Rondeau, in her comments section, that Ogden is widely seen as a racist. But some jerk doesn't feel like trying to work around Rondeau's bane.

[Luke]

Racist birther: "It never got into the courts."

Reasonable person: Provides court cases.

Racist birther: "it is quite useless for non-experts to argue endlessly about this topic on the Internet." "And I'm going on a trip."

#BirtherFAIL #BirtherOWN

Roger (Admin)says:
March 19, 2023 at 2:34 pm
My whole point is that the there is no general standard for how the requirement should be implemented. My proposal is for states to create their own general law.

Also, that it is quite useless for non-experts to argue endlessly about this topic on the Internet. I don’t want to spend the rest of my life arguing with Internet users. I just want to make the suggestion that the states start legislating a general standard that can pass inspection by the Supreme court if it is possible to do that. It seems to me that it should be possible for states to do this.

These cases that you mention are from state courts and my guess is do not set a precedent in other states. Other states may see it differently. Neither has it been tested in the Supreme Court. Even if a state court has ruled, that doesn’t mean that the state can’t afterwards pass a law that supersedes the court ruling.

These two cases are for specific situations and do not create a general standard for who should be qualified to be President that can be applied in every state.

Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana

Carmon ELLIOTT, Petitioner v. Ted CRUZ, Respondent.

I am about to go on a trip, so I don’t have time to read about these two cases, closely. But my point is I shouldn’t have to. Legislatures and the courts should do the work, not me and you. Nothing is going to be resolved in this issue on the Internet. We can inform people, though, and motivate them to push their state legislators to act.


tbfreemansays:
March 19, 2023 at 4:25 pm
The states don’t believe there is a problem. You are proposing a solution for a problem that does not exist. No state is going to do what you propose.

And states cannot create eligibility requirements for the presidency (and vice presidency) that are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Which is another reason why states aren’t going to attempt to craft any legislation. Because no state legislature can pass a law that violates the U.S. Constitution.

The Ankeny ruling has been adopted by courts in other states. No court disagrees with it.

Other states also agreed Cruz is a natural-born citizen. The Pennsylvania ruling about Cruz’s eligibility was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it declined to hear the appeal.

Under your beliefs, Vice President Harris also isn’t a natural-born citizen, but no attorney filed a lawsuit against her eligibility. That silence should tell you something.

The system is working; you just don’t like the results. The courts have been doing the work; you just don’t like what they are saying.

[bob]

Racist birther: "it is quite useless for non-experts to argue endlessly about this topic on the Internet." "And I'm going on a trip."

And (my) comments now seem moderated.

[Dave from down under]

some jerk must have upset him...

he is now taking his ball and going to play with himself...

[northland10]

In the past, I may have mentioned to a birther here and there that if their approach is not working and they believe the electorate agrees with them, why don't they just try and have the Constitution amended to expressly state the eligibility rules that they want. Then there would be no doubt.

The result would either be a change of subject or a litany of excuses.

- Congress cannot be trusted
- Marxists Demonrats would kill it.
- We don't need an amendment when it is already stated expressly
- Takes too long
- An amendment would just be ignored
- Amendments are not the true Constitution
- Something about John Jay
- More somethings about American hating liberal/leftist/marxists/Nazis.

I believe some of them are more worried as they know they would lose and that would be even worse. Attempts to require at least one parent citizen for birthright citizenship (sometimes specifically the mother) had always failed to go beyond the "kill by referral to committee" step. To have their blessed 2-parent thing die on the vine was something many did not want.

Oh yeah, we are also reminded, for all their paper throwing, many are also lazy in exercising their civic responsibilities.

I am about to go on a trip, so I don’t have time to read about these two cases, closely. But my point is I shouldn’t have to. Legislatures and the courts should do the work,

I don't want to learn the facts, I just want the government and courts to do what I want.

[Reality Check]

Cool RC, really happy you have them! You can even upload to YouTube, there are lots of audiobooks on there, maybe they have a bulk upload feature.

Thanks for the suggestion. It's a bit of a chore to convert the MP3's to video format. I tried the first show I had archived. I still need to figure out how to add persistent graphics. It's been years since I fooled with video. Looks like it is feasible though.



The link is unlisted but should work.

[bob]

Patriot Fire (reposted at the P&E): States Should Enforce “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement

P&E comment:

Lots of comment action by Patriots and also OBOT trolls on the subject article after my re-posting of this ThePostEmail article by Roger Ogden at this other website. Roger’s idea hit a nerve it seems. It really has the OBOT and HARRISbot types all stirred up over there. The idea obviously scares them so they have to squash it with their faulty logic arguments, misinformation, lying by omission, mixing up state and federal common law, mixing up citizens with subjects, falsely saying our new country adopted British Common Law at the “federal level” when they created the new Constitution, misinforming case law and writings by tactical use of the ellipsis — like the did in the CRS Memos, or to keep moving the goal post, citing dicta and not holdings, saying the founders and framers did not clearly read and understand Vattel’s legal treatise in French, … that I have seen them (the OBOT trolls — likely paid operative online troll farms) use over and over again for the last 13+ years. They’ll use any unscrupulous or other tactic to disrupt any meaningful, logical discussion. See this link: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4139225/posts

Of course, Kerchner: the freepers telling you that you are wrong also are HARRISbots (wow is that clunky!).

Meanwhile at racist central Patriot-Fire:

The problem I see with your suggestion is the state courts in about a dozen states have already ruled they are bound by the Supreme Court precedent of US v Wong Kim Ark (1898). This means any state law which is in conflict with that ruling would be declared unconstitutional by the state courts. The only way the SCOTUS would take it up is if they wanted to overturn Wong Kim Ark. They had a number of opportunities to do that back with President Obama and chose not to.

My idea does not depend on that. I am not trying to dictate any specific result. I’m not an constitutional attorney and I assume you are not an attorney. However, I believe Wong Kim Ark found only that he was a “citizen” by the 14th Amendment and and not a “natural born citizen” eligible to become president as the Framers intended. But my purpose is not to provide a forum where a bunch of unknowledgeable people debate something that they are not qualified to talk about with authority, but to promote the idea that one or more states should take up the question and make a law, according to however they understand the requirements. If say a progressive state believes that Putin could have one of his whores give birth in the US, raise the baby in the Kremlin in Russia and then later help him become US president under the 14th Amendment, then God bless ’em. Hope they make a law to that effect and the Supreme court will review it. The States have the resources and expertise to do something about it, whereas you and I don’t. Thanks for your irrelevant comment, though.

How many times do I need to say that I am not trying to address the question directly, of who is qualified? I am proposing a process to obtain a general legal standard by legislated law, not by scattered, piecemeal state court decisions.

Even Ogden doesn't believe his I'm-not-pushing-for-a-specific-result lie.

Courts resolve innumerable legal questions not fully answered by legislation. "Funny" how this one issue is so pressing to this racist.

And maybe not just this one racist.

[bob]

And maybe not just this one racist.

P&E: The Role of States and “POPE’s” in Presidential Eligibility Determinations:

Recently there appeared here at The P&E – one of the few remaining viable and non-censored Internet “natural born Citizen” information sources – a particularly relevant and insightful post. The P&E post reprised the article and substance of a proposal advanced here by one Roger Ogden. Mr. Ogden, in turn, properly acknowledged the origins of the argument by eligibility guru Mario Apuzzo, Esq. – lamentably, passing away at age 65 on October 10, 2021 – and first advanced by him back in March 2011. That post by Mr. Apuzzo from 2011, by the way, should first be perused by anyone interested in the proposal now being advanced in 2023 by Mr. Ogden.

The essence of the current proposal is quite simple: the states have the power under the Constitution’s “Elections Clause,” Art. 1, § 4, Cl., 1 to enact laws of their own setting forth the requirements of a presidential candidate to qualify for inclusion on a primary or general election ballot. Under that power, states would be able to adopt, in their own jurisdictions if they so chose, the definition of a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) articulated in § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s 1758 treatise “Le Droit des Gens,” or “The Law of Nations.” . . . .

Thus, a “red” state could then prescribe that a presidential candidate must adduce competent evidence that the candidate is a nbC as posited by de Vattel – born on U.S. soil to two parents who are already U.S. citizens – as discussed among many other places here, here and here.

On the other hand, a different “blue” (or even purple) state might enact a statute adopting the “Wong Kim Ark” (“WKA”) theory mandating a definition stating that mere birth alone here – and under some variations on the theme, birth, for example say, in Canada or Panama – and regardless of parental citizenship, would be enough to render the person a nbC.

Clearly, this dichotomy would (or at minimum, should) present a wealth of opportunities for opposing litigants in either the red state, the blue state or the purple state to file suit challenging the constitutionality of the respective statutes. For ease of reference here, let us give these species of statutes an acronym: “POPE” or “Proof of Presidential Eligibility” statutes.

In addition to providing an avenue to challenge a POPE law before the Supreme Court by a private party in a state that had enacted a statute requiring, in order to appear on the ballot, documentation of a candidate’s presidential eligibility articulated under either a de Vattel § 212 definition of a nbC or, alternatively, a “Wong Kim Ark” or “WKA” definition, another potential option exists.

Specifically, in order to avoid “standing” issues which could otherwise complicate challenges to either of such species of POPE statutes by private litigants, original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court – obviating questions of private litigant standing – may be found in Art. 3, § 2, Cl. 5: “The judicial Power [of the Supreme Court] shall extend… to Controversies between two or more States….”

[ * * * ]

However, there are some complicating issues that need to be addressed. As Mr. Apuzzo pointed out in his 2011 post, a lawyer at the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”), one Jack Maskell, had addressed these issues in a memorandum issued on April 3, 2009. . . .

Mr. Apuzzo, quoting Mr. Maskell’s memorandum, notes that the decision in Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974) holds that “the States have evolved comprehensive, and in many respects complex, election codes regulating in most substantial ways, with respect to both federal and state elections, the time, place, and manner of holding primary and general elections, the registration and qualifications of voters, and the selection and qualification of candidates.” (Emphasis added).

Assuming that Mr. Maskell equated the term “qualification” with the term “eligibility,” it would seem clear that he was acknowledging that states – red, blue or purple – could enact laws regarding that particular state’s adoption of whatever it believed constituted a “natural born Citizen.” As long as the state law did not define a nbC in a way that contravened the actual words of the Constitution, it should be validated.

DeMaio imagines that over 20 state legislatures and governors agree with his delusions.

But:

Stated otherwise, the suggestion made at The P&E and here that the states should take up the challenge where the Supreme Court has refused merits serious consideration. Kudos go out to Mr. Ogden and posthumous thanks as well to Mario Apuzzo. The problem, of course, will be to find those states with a legislature and governor willing to take these steps, thereby eliminating perhaps as many as fully one-half – or more – of the states in the Union.

Living in the reality-based world seems to be DeMaio's main problem.

[Sam the Centipede]

Living in the reality-based world seems to be DeMaio's main problem.

His (and all the remnant birthers') other problem is living in the present rather than the past: Obama served his two terms, Trump has been and gone (hopefully for ever), Biden is halfway through his term, yet they still squeal about an issue spawned by their racist fear of the scary (to them!!) young black guy from the city back in 2008, fifteen years ago.

Fifteen years!!

[bob]

The essence of the current proposal is quite simple: the states have the power under the Constitution’s “Elections Clause,” Art. 1, § 4, Cl., 1 to enact laws of their own setting forth the requirements of a presidential candidate to qualify for inclusion on a primary or general election ballot.

O RLY?

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Guess the "scholar" actually never read the U.S. Constitution.

[Luke]

The idea obviously scares them

Reallllllist! Is Chuckles right? Just scared... or

Sam is right... Fifteen years and they are still determined to be stuck on stupid.

Did we ever learn the real identity of DeMaio? He has to be some birther we know about, there just aren't that many left who'd keep

For a while, wondered if DeMaio was deep uncover Foggy.

RC, it worked perfectly! Sorry if the conversion is a hassle, thought maybe it could just be uploaded as an MP3. The good thing is it's there forever. Looking forward to listening later

[Reality Check]

RC, it worked perfectly! Sorry if the conversion is a hassle, thought maybe it could just be uploaded as an MP3. The good thing is it's there forever. Looking forward to listening later

Just remember that was around the second episode. I was really new at radio. Somehow I I lost the first one from May 2009. I may start with the more popular episodes like the Lakin court martial trial and the Rev. Manning interview. God I had so much fun on most of those shows. We had such great callers, esp. the on the scene reports from hearings in Orly's crap lawsuits and other ones.

[Luke]

They are so much fun to listen to! People couldn't stop laughing at the ridiculous antics of these birthers while they lost, and lost, and got sanctioned, and lost. Absolutely on doing the Best Of shows... I even remember the Lakin show and how insane that was. Our new members won't believe that idiot lost his pension and went to Levenworth over birthing. Important history that birthers still fail to grasp 15 years later (we were all so young and innocent! ). It's nice to laugh at them again.

[keith]

The good thing is it's there forever. Looking forward to listening later

Or until some rich Sith-efrican buys YT, anyway.

[bob]

I don't want to learn the facts, I just want the government and courts to do what I want.

Ogden, who is about to go on a trip , found time to comment at the P&E:

I actually thought of it while reading about states defining “male” and “female” in order to counter the transgender mania. I thought, then why can’t the states also define “natural born citizen”. I started a post and then discovered that Mario Apuzzo had already written a much more detailed analysis in 2011. There are no new ideas, I guess, but sometimes there are ideas whose time has come and can be dusted off.

And his own blog:

This Government Publishing Office (GPO) website says the Congressional record first started in 1873. So, I think any page from 1866 must be fake. I wouldn’t matter even if it did exist, because the Supreme Court ruled on [the meaning of citizen].

Ogden in correct that the Congressional Record wasn't first published until 1873. But the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, sec. 5) requires Congress to journal its proceedings; pre-1873, it merely went by different names.

Some jerk* would tell Ogden this, but Ogden, like Rondeau, is now moderating his comments.

*

[Luke]

In those P&E comments, this is heartwarming. Looks like Ron has decided President Obama is a Natural Born Citizen and he's done with being a loser:

Ron Teidel says:
Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:19 AM
Or, Change OUR Country’s Name To “STATES OF AMERICA”, Because We Certainly Are No Longer UNITED!

When Crystal Clear Just Isn’t Clear Enough For The Whiners, Societies Weaklings Change The Meanings Of Century Old Words, Concise Laws, And Yes Even Erase Inconvenient History!

After 77 Years Of Fighting For The RIGHT, I Say FORGET IT! I’m Done! It’s The Spineless Turn! You Chose This This Mess Without A Fight!

Lovely. We have out Dead Birthers topic... should we have a "FORGET IT! I'm Done Being A Birther!" topic?

[Reality Check]

I am super-banned at the Pest & Efail but if I were to comment I would add this.

Presidential eligibility is a federal question. A president cannot be eligible in one state and not in another. First if any state tried to limit the ballot to the imaginary Birther definition of natural born it would quickly be challenged and be struck down in court. But I do not think there is any appetite to do this kind of legislation. Many of the red states are too busy trying to erase slavery from the history books or pass laws discriminating against trans.

Even among conservatives I do not think that many sign on to the two citizen parent nonsense. Recall that even Fox News never bought into the crackpot Birther movement in 2009 and several hosts called it silly. In a Birther fantasy world where a red state was allowed to remove a candidate from the ballot and that candidate still managed to get elected and become president that person would be president of all the states regardless of any state law. However, I do not see the court letting such a nonsense law ever stand.

[Reality Check]

Did we know that Carl Gallups ended his radio show Freedumb Friday last year?

[realist]

Did we know that Carl Gallups ended his radio show Freedumb Friday last year?

I'm not surprised, but did not know.

But then I had been banned since posting my first comment there. It was a quote from a court case, with the link, which totally contradicted what he claimed it said.

[Reality Check]

I'm not surprised, but did not know.

But then I had been banned since posting my first comment there. It was a quote from a court case, with the link, which totally contradicted what he claimed it said.

For a person who claimed to be representing Gawd he was the slickest and most prolific liar I have ever seen. Yes, he was think skinned too. I recall the days when BR Bob posted Youtube video highlights from FF after any show where he had Zullo. Of course they all merited a Rondeau article too. So many promises and not a single one ever came true.