(Feb. 13, 2024) — One of the more useful features of The P&E platform, apart from the topical articles appearing here, is the comments section. There, some insightful and frequently robust discussions can take place where differing views can be voiced and compete with one another. Is not the First Amendment cool, despite the efforts of many on the Left to censor and neuter its existence?
One of the topics generating some of the more spirited and robust exchanges is – that’s right, Virginia – the “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) presidential eligibility issue under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. That provision restricts eligibility (not “qualification”) to the presidency to a “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution….”
It is assumed that most, if not all who are reading this offering, are generally familiar with the competing theories of what the nbC term actually meant to the Founders in 1787 when they were drafting the Constitution. For a quick “refresher course,” some may wish to review this post.
In addition, from time to time it is useful to explore in more detail some of the comments submitted to posts addressing the issue. That has happened several times in the past, as for example here and here.
Such a time again presents itself regarding multiple comments offered by commenter Joe Leland to a recent article by your humble servant addressing references to the nbC issue occurring at the recent Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. That is the case where the Colorado Secretary of State is attempting to keep President Trump off the primary ballot on the claim that he is an “insurrectionist” barred under the 14th Amendment. Your servant addressed that mile-high anomaly here.
Mr. Leland offers many comments relating to the nbC issue as discussed in your servant’s “Anderson” article, and readers are encouraged to review those comments…, and perhaps offer their own comments.
As for the present article you are reading, the objective will be to respond to and counter some selected comments offered by Mr. Leland. There are many responses that might be made, but a complete analysis would rival “War and Peace” in length. Your servant will offer, instead, examples and responses that would typify those for a complete novel…, but shorter.
Kamala Harris was born a Jamaican Citizen at Birth via her foreign national Jamaican citizen father who was sojourning in the USA on a temporary VISA. She also had a citizen of India mother who was also sojourning in the USA on a temporary VISA. Her mother divorced her father and the mother moved to Canada with Kamala while Kamala was very young. Canada is where Kamala grew up during her crucial formative years. It is not known if Kamala’s mother and or Kamala by derivation gained Canadian citizenship while in Canada. Another question Kamala needs to be asked.
Both her parents were in the USA on temporary VISA’s and neither were permanent residents or citizens of the USA. Kamala was thus born with dual-Citizenship and divided and multiple attendant allegiance requirements to two countries at birth. She is a classic “citizen of the world” in her upbringing and views and does not have allegiance by birth solely and only to the USA. She was born with foreign influence and allegiance requirements to Jamaica on her by birth. She could go to the Jamaican entry and get a Jamaican at birth passport, if she does not already have one. That’s a question she should be asked. Do you have now or did you ever have in the past a Jamaican passport.?
The presidential eligibility clause and 12th Amendment (last line) in our U.S. Constitution is to be a strong check against persons born with foreign influence gaining control of our highest elected offices and becoming the Commander in Chief of our military, either via the front door or the VP back door.
The guest for this show will be Attorney Mario Apuzzo, a battle-hardened warrior for the constitution who has been on the front lines of the “natural born Citizen” controversy for well over a decade. The show discussion will seek definitive answers tonight on the eligibility question to serve as President and Vice President of these united States and will discuss the lack of constitutional eligibility of Senator Kamala Harris to serve in the office of Vice President of the United States.
The presidential eligibility clause and 12th Amendment (last line) in our U.S. Constitution is to be a strong check against persons born with foreign influence gaining control of our highest elected offices.
During the show host Mike Volin and his guests will investigate the lack of constitutional eligibility of Kamala Harris to serve in the office of Vice President of the United States.
Publisher and columnist, Sharon Rondeau from ThePostEmail.com, investigative reseachers CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) and Miki Booth, will be our guests. The constitutional ability to hold the office of the President and Vice President under the Natural Born Citizen clause of our Constitution are under attack. It is evident over the past decades that an attack on our Constitution has been under way and continues to this day. We will provide a multitude of evidence to clearly show what the requirements are. The Natural Born Citizen clause was entered into our Constitution to protect our Country from foreign influence and invaders. Does that exist today? You better believe it does. Please tune in and listen, call in to the show to express your concerns and give your opinions. Open telephone lines.
First We Had Obots (Obama Online Bots & Trolls). Then We Had CruzBots (Ted Cruz Supporters Tried It Too ), But Were Not As Good At It As the Far Left. Now We Have the Far Left Hbots (Harris Online Bots & Trolls). But They All Use the Same Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation and Gas Lighting to Change the Meaning of Language to Push Their Agenda — Especially to Change the Meaning of Words and Terms in Our U.S. Constitution.
Twenty-Five rules of Obot & Hbot online disinformation specialists — aka “Gas Lighting” and in more erudite propaganda-pushing marketing circles, more euphemistically known as “Perception Management”.
Source: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney — http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues. 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit. 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact. 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. 6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint. 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source. 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues. 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact. 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10. 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place. 16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue. 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’ 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. 20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications. 21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body which is in your pocket. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim. 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively. 23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. 24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health. 25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinformation players/teams by one or more of seven distinct posting traits: 1. Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input … ; 2. Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach … ; 3. Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions … ; 4. Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams … ; 5. Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ [and are quick to label anyone opposed to their view as a conspiracy nut and other put-down names] … ; 6. Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance … ; and 7. Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. Click here for the full review and discussion of these frequently used disinformation traits of the far left, and the new 8th one, commonly used by Obot [and now Hbot] operative quick response teams: http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
# # # #
Click on image for an example of the Gas Lighting technique portrayed in this 1944 movie
Also see “Gas Lighting“, another disinformation term to describe the orchestrated confusion of reality to confuse the target … which in Obama’s and the far left’s case is the American electorate … all enabled by a cowardly and complicit U.S. Congress and an enabling and complicit main stream media:
CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.