Posted on 08/21/2024 11:05:17 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Aug. 16, 2024) — On or about August 4, 2024, Zach DeGregorio, host of the program, “Wolves and Finance,” uploaded a video to his YouTube channel titled, “Who is Kamala Harris?” which, among other things, questioned whether Harris is a “natural born Citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for the president and commander-in-chief.
Harris became the presumptive 2024 Democrat presidential nominee almost immediately after Joe Biden on July 21 withdrew from the race and endorsed her. To that point, according to NBC News, Harris was the least popular person to hold the office since its polling began. On Wednesday, YouTube informed DeGregorio it removed his video on the grounds it allegedly distributed “misinformation” for questioning Harris’s eligibility. YouTube additionally placed a “warning” on his channel, DeGregorio told us in an email Wednesday, and informed him that another violation over the next 90 days would generate a “strike.” ... . . .
“I was taken completely by surprise,” DeGregorio, an accountant by trade and rising political commentator, told us. “This is a legitimate legal question that people should be allowed to discuss.” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Natural born merely refers to citizenship granted at birth as opposed to naturalized.
Not true.
The article clearly points
this out.
Her status in the US is a
“naturalized” citizen.
Articles, especially from agenda driven media outlets, aren’t authoritative.
I think you are referring to the difference between TRUTH, and what the courts will enforce.
No, those are two different things, and we should not confuse the one with the other.
We should have courts that value TRUTH, but we don't, and we should all acknowledge that, and work to make the courts prioritize TRUTH above political convenience.
Natural born citizens need no grant of citizenship. Their citizenship is inherent.
The article contains the
authoratative context.
Now isn't that a pickle, naturally born citizen man.
That’s correct.
Wow. .
Yeah, you had it wrong and you had to be corrected.
WOW!
If what you espouse is “truth” then get the courts to see it and rule on it.
Otherwise it’s only opinion, not law.
Yes. And it acknowledges the current legal status of the topic, but characterizes it as misinterpreted.
That’s opinion, not law.
If it’s wrong, the Supreme Court will have to decide, not Sharon.
You have comprehension difficulties.
That's funny. Have you not followed the history of our courts very closely? It took them nearly 60 years to override "separate but equal."
They aren't fast learners, and they are lazy and cowardly. They don't really care what the truth is if it is going to open up a big can of worms for them.
The shame is that we don't have better and more intelligent people in our court system.
Look how long it took them to figure out Roe v Wade was legal nonsense. Look how long it took them to understand how "shall not be infringed" actually means "shall not be infringed."
Our courts are a collection of pompous mid-wits drunk on their own egos and the power they wield. And this isn't just the top Federal courts. I've seen idiocy in plenty of state courts, like that one that convicted Derick Chauvin.
You propose the improbable to determine an eventuality?
Become a dictator then and lead us all to the promise land with your truth.
Until then, it’s the system we have. There are ways built in to change it.
Says the man who just last night who didn't know the difference between natural born and naturally born.
Nothingness is interdependant on the relatedness of motivation, subcultures, and management.
Posting nonsense CAN be fun.
I’ll ask again then, what is the difference?
It's not "my" truth. It's objective truth. As I said, any man with eyes can read it for themselves. There is *EVIDENCE* that the framers of the 14th amendment *DID NOT INTEND* for it to operate the way the courts claim it is supposed to operate.
The only thing the courts have for evidence is "WE SAY SO!"
Until then, it’s the system we have.
And we should acknowledge when it is *WRONG* and *INCORRECT* about a factual matter for which there is *EVIDENCE* to prove the system is wrong.
Perhaps you don't keep up with the immense number of botched cases our court system produces year after year. Take for example the recent Alec Baldwin case, which was dismissed *WITH PREJUDICE* for an asinine and stupid reason. (The prosecutor "with held" utterly useless data from the defense. Data which would have had no bearing and no impact on the fact that Alec Baldwin pointed a gun at a woman and pulled the trigger.
This is but one of many examples of absolute idiocy coming from our "system." Judge Merchan is another example, as is Fanni Wilis in Atlanta, and Judge lying idiot Chutken in Washington DC.
These people need to be dragged off their thrones by their ears, hauled into the streets and beaten into unconsciousness.
We have *IDIOT*, *LYING*, *CORRUPT*, Judges all through our system, and we should *SAY SO* whenever the topic of our "system" comes up.
Do regale others with your enlightened insights into how such changes could be accomplished and which artifices might be utilized thereof.
Sharing is caring, after all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.