Posted on 07/26/2024 7:59:03 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Jul. 26, 2024) — As posted Tuesday by the “X” account @Kancel Kamala, on August 20, 2020, then-Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Christopher John England sent a “Certification” to then-Alabama Secretary of State John H. Merrill naming the party’s 2020 nominees for President and Vice President, respectively, as “Joseph R. Biden” and “Kamala D. Harris.”
The 18-page set of documents remains available at the Alabama Secretary of State’s website.
As part of the “certification” process, each nominee provided a signed and notarized “Consent to Nomination of the Democratic Party” and “affirmed” he or she was constitutionally qualified for the position sought on November 3, 2020 (pp. 8 and 9 below).
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
I have no idea what “logs” you are talking about. This is a public forum and what you do here is public information by your posting comments here. Time for you to stop the insinuations of nefarious doings, veiled threats, and attempts at intimidation.
Instead, it’s time to get back to the subject of this thread, the article I shared, “Who is Responsible for Verifying Presidential Eligibility?”: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/07/26/who-is-responsible-for-verifying-presidential-eligibility/
CDR Kerchner (Retired)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org/
“We cannot allow her”
I do not know what that means.
I do not want to know what that means.
In theory? Everybody.
In fact? Nobody.
Unfortunate, but the defacto reality we face.
To understand the NBC Birthers, it helps to look at Sovereign Citizens, you know, the folks who tell people that they do not have to have driver’s licenses, tags or insurance. Often, they have binders of misquoted case law and other “legal” material to show the cops, or the courts.
My theory is, that it is those 20 minutes or so they interact with the cops, before their window gets busted, and they get dragged out of the car and arrested - those minutes are what they live for, and what the whole thing is all about.
For those few minutes, they get all the attention of numerous cops, and they can pretend that they are legal experts. The fact that their car gets towed, and that they run up a lot of expenses - that is just like paying a pro to spank them, or engage in whatever fantasy excites them.
That is why they rinse and repeat. I think the same thing is true for the NBC Birthers. For a few minutes they get attention, and they can copy and paste whatever quasi-legal garbage they have, and the fact that they lose in court, and that people think they are crazy, that is just part of the cost.
Here is a video - watch this, and tell me this person is not immensely enjoying the scenario. His screams at the end are hilarious!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STsYGIsDWJg&t=295s
This is the same kind of person who is an NBC Birther. Same twisted mindset.
Another fogbow infiltration.
Yes, I agree that we are now in a mess. The protections set up originally in the Constitution by the founders and framers have been abrogated away, first slowly then very quickly, by the major political parties enacting laws at the state level to hobble the Electoral College. Also the weakening of states rights over time. And the U.S. Supreme Court which could straighten out this constitutional eligibility mess are a bunch of cowards and are evading the issue as to who is a “natural born Citizen” in regards to eligibility to be the President and Commander in Chief, which is a case of first impression to them for that term as it applied to the election of a President, and they should have taken up in the 2008 election cycle, but instead of doing their constitutional duty to interpret the constitution per what Chief Justice Marshal once said https://www.scribd.com/document/21219344/Chief-Justice-John-Marshall-Quote-20091019-Issue-Wash-Times-National-Weekly-pg-15 , they instead evaded the issue as Chief Justice Thomas so clearly stated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08
And here she is again, dragging out that same old straw man.
The act wasn't funny the first go around.
That's if they even know what is correct. Given how widespread in the legal community is the "Common law" theory of citizenship, I'm not sure any of the justices would get it right.
And of course, they are too afraid to even look at it officially.
While this is a public forum, some people post anonymously. Their HTTP header information is not public information, it's private to JimRob's server and private to any server hosting images. There is an expectation of privacy of IP addresses, browser fingerprints, etc.
In the John Roberts led court, you are probably correct.
Some say that Obama had some dirt on Roberts. And like, so many things going on down there in that national sewer of Washington DC, the major media is in on it and enabling it, and we’ll probably never know.
You started questioning me with demanding yes or no questions about my domain servers. And interestingly, you seem to be a lot more informed about tracking and exposing people’s true identity online than I am. Are you engaging in “projection” of things you have done onto others? It’s like the analogy “all crooks think everyone is a crook” to justify what they are doing. Just an analogy of course. Given your expertise in tracking people online, maybe other people here should be more worried about you and some of the OBOTS here than me. Are you an OBOT?
If you want to see some more political orientated images on my servers, I have a nice collection of them here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/archives.htm
If you are so worried about someone tracking down your real identity, then like someone else said, use a VPN. But, I’m certainly not interested in tracking you down. As you see, I comment using my real name. I’m not hiding from anyone.
Like I said, let’s get back on topic and stop with the insinuations that you made that I might be tracking people and selling data. I do no such thing. But what I’ve seen in life is that people who accuse others of doing something nefarious are in many cases the very one engaging in the nefarious activity. Saul Alinsky in his book “Rules for Radicals” even suggested use of that tactic.
So Mr. WhoEverYouReallyAre ????, and I don’t care who you really are, please get back to commenting about the article I shared about the eligibility issue with Harris: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/07/26/who-is-responsible-for-verifying-presidential-eligibility/
Kamala has such a bad record, she can be attacked like a punching bag by just stating facts. SCOTUS will rule he eligible.
Huh? Where did you read that?
IMHO anyone born and raised in USA to legal parents is natural born citizen. All the powers that be have the same conclusion, including SCOTUS.
Yes, legal parents.
Kamala's birth in the US violated the terms of her parent's US presence, as they were granted entry for the purpose of study (not reproduction).
We know they will try.....
Ed Meese and John Eastman wrote this Amicus Curiae brief in the case of Hamdi back in 2004: Brief of Amicus Curiae. The court made no determination w.r.t citizenship in this case and the issue remains. Barack Hussein Obama (aka "Barry Soetoro" by adoption) at least had one certifiable parent who was a US citizen and so could be naturalized by an ordinary process even had he been proven to have been born outside the US. This is not the case for either Hamdi or Harris. So it's not just "mental masturbation" to bring it up. And the Supreme Court has not in fact ruled on it in any way.
Any reasonable reading of the 14th would conclude that not only is she not a "natural born citizen" but is not in fact a citizen at all. She would have either Jamaican nationality from her father (Jamaica became independent of Britain in 1962) or Indian from her mother.
The fact that a political coward like John Roberts won't touch it merely reinforces that description of him. And the Congress has had many attempts to clarify the 14th with respect to citizenship of the children of illegal aliens, all of which were tabled. So no vote has ever been conducted that would settle the issue.
Snark all you want, but the issue is far from settled.
US Courts recognize only 2 types or classes of citizens.
ZIMMER et al. v. ACHESON, Secretary of State 10 Cir., 191 F.2d 209
There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen.”
Johansen v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co. 272 N.Y. 140 (N.Y. 1936)
5 N.E.2d 68
“There are two classes of citizens, native born citizens and naturalized citizens.”
Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States 45 F. Supp. 61 (D. Md. 1942)
“There are only two types of citizens: those who are native born and those who are naturalized.”
Are you an OBOT?
Is that someone who doesn't buy Kenyan or Canadian birth solely because I secretly like Obama? The answer to that is also no.
The topic of NBC was interesting back in Obama's day but required off-shore birth to a non-US father disqualifying the citizen mother. Kind of rickety structure on which to hang disqualification. That's why I figured it was simply a psyop to excise people from the media. It didn't stop Trump of course and there's a lesson in courage there.
But now applied to Kamala it's a little different. Neither parent was a citizen so she's an anchor baby. Did the Framers want to forbid an anchor baby president? Probably. But the USSC has "forgotten" that interpretatio now. Modern rulings now state
As dis- cussed above, that principle, that “every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States . . . is a natural born citizen,” governed Ameri- can jurisprudence from the Founding through the nineteenth century from https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1394/226610/20220531125853185_Amicus%20Brief.pdf
That's not a holding but it reflects the current opinion of the USSC that there's no distinction between native born and natural born
Your chart lacks case law. Your chart is various uses of citizen and what you believe in the contemporary interpretation of natural born in the bottom row. But I maintain that the USSC disagrees and that's in the 1898 and subsequent cases. The USSC could overturn that case law but that's extremely unlikely.
In some states the average citizen can take it up challenge and have standing. But it depends on state laws.
Secretaries of State will sometimes refuse to allow ineligible candidates on ballots if they are clearly ineligible (under 35 years of age or a naturalized citizen).
“Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment”
Bingham also said this on March 28th, 1868
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.”
He said this almost two years after the 14th Amendment had been passed in Congressand sent to the states for ratification. Seventeen states had ratified by the time Bingham said this.
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.