Debt Rattle January 22 2019
- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Pablo Picasso Female bust 1922 • Pre-Davos Survey Shows Sixfold Rise In Global CEOs’ Gloom (G.) • In Versailles, Macron Vows To Reform To Avoid
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle January 22 2019]Pablo Picasso Female bust 1922
1922 yet again; Female bust; an intriguing study of the female form; explored from a pov foreign to myself…
But then, so much of life is thus…• With Kamala Harris In The Race, Trump Stands No Chance Of Winning (Ind.)
Going back to that quaint thing called “law” and that quaint time when we used to follow it, “The Independent”’s breathless gushing of Kamala Harris overlooks that she is not a Natural Born Citizen.
“Neither parent reportedly was present in the U.S. as a legal resident for five years prior to Harris’s birth, a requirement to apply for naturalization, Wilmott observed in an interview with The Post & Email on Thursday.” https://www.thepostemail.com/2018/08/19/is-kamala-harris-eligible-to-be-president/
What people miss is that you can be a U.S. citizen, but not a “Natural” Citizen, which is a narrower definition. While this has never been tested in court, there were questions even concerning McCain, who was born on a military base in Panama, to say nothing of Cruz and Rubio, both probably not “natural”, born in Canada and having dual citizenship. …But I don’t know why I bring it up, since no one’s followed the law, i.e. the Constitution, in decades, if not a century. But that’s journalism for ya! The “expert” who is supposed to ask questions and cover these things, asked “exactly no” questions and knew exactly nothing, which is what I’ve come to expect from The Independent. Weren’t they listed as Britain’s least reliable paper? Not kidding.
Same lately with practically everything. Can a reporter just CALL the object of their story for comment? No? Can they just spend the 2 hours and WATCH the actual, public, video footage before calling for open violence against children? No. Can they then keep their profile on twitter, keep their “fact-checking” cred, blue checkmark, erase their calls to violence without retracting, pretend they didn’t, and join Buzzfeed (and the NYT) in being horribly, violently, obviously, disturbingly wrong? Yes they can. And tomorrow they’ll do it again, and their readers will be HAPPY they were wrong, believe them all over again, keep clicking, and play along. #Winning!
#My side, right or wrong. (Usually wrong). #Often wrong but never in doubt. #StarkRavingMadness
P.S. Jack Dorsey again says OBVIOUSLY we social media companies coordinate to erase people and ideas we don’t like, duh! …Which means when accounts from Isis, the Taliban, or these SJWs calling for attacks against children remain happily undisturbed for years despite blatant breach of conduct, that is approved and coordinated by Dorsey, Zuckerberg, etc too. …And wouldn’t it be fun to know who they are coordinating with and why? Most interesting.
Greenland’s Ice Melting Four Times Faster Than In 2003 (Ind.)
That’s odd, because “In addition to the bitter cold, snow and ice accumulation throughout Greenland has been running at the high end of normal since the fall of 2016 – at times at or near record levels.”
(pic)
So it’s reported it’s both increasing and decreasing, and the maps show a mild snow increase with long-term data basically unchanged for 30 years? Somehow that does not add up to 4x faster than ever. Oh wait: “The Independent”, the ones who don’t know how presidents are elected? That’s right.
Dr. D, your photos show that the glacier is moving. Notice the superimposed graphic line where the glacier used to be in the 2017 photo, but if you look closer at the ice itself you’ll see a portion of the break line from the earlier photo further down stream. The rest of the ice in the 2017 photo is calved ice.
This from USGS: The floating ends of glaciers like Petermann are known as ice shelves. They act as doorstops. When these ice shelves suddenly splinter and weaken, the glaciers that feed them speed up. The result is more ice flowing into the ocean,…
“there were questions even concerning McCain, who was born on a military base in Panama, to say nothing of Cruz and Rubio, both probably not “natural”, born in Canada and having dual citizenship.”
Regarding Kamala Harris:
“Under the 14th Amendment’s Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.”Regarding McCain, Cruz, and Rubio:
“There is some debate over whether or not one may also be a natural born citizen if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person’s parents.”https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
Natural born citizen
Overview
A natural-born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth, and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life.Political Office Requirement
The phrase “natural-born citizen” appears in the U.S. Constitution. In order to become the President or Vice President of the United States, a person must be a natural-born citizen. This “Natural-Born Citizen Clause” is located in Section 1 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution.The constitution does not expressly define “natural born” nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning. One can be a citizen while not being a “natural born” citizen if, for example, that person gained citizenship through the process of naturalization.
Under the 14th Amendment’s Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship.
There is some debate over whether or not one may also be a natural born citizen if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person’s parents.
Today, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 defines naturalization as “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” In contrast, § 1401 lists eight categories of peoples who are “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth,” including those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, as well as children of one or more U.S. citizens abroad as long as the parent(s) meet certain requirements. This means that foreign-born citizens falling under a provision in 1401 are, by statutory definition, not naturalized. The term “natural born” is not used, however.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.