Vivek appears with Pete Buttigeig as a trusted resource planted in audiences and used as operatives on psyops for more than 20 years. A special pet of George Soros, listed on his site originally. Needed his Wikipedia page heavily edited to conceal all of this. Shill is shilling.
Vivek appears with Pete Buttigeig as a trusted resource planted in audiences and used as operatives on psyops for more than 20 years. A special pet of George Soros, listed on his site originally. Needed his Wikipedia page heavily edited to conceal all of this. Shill is shilling.
He is not a "special pet of George Soros". The only connection he has to anyone named Soros is that he won a full academic scholarship for post-grad (Yale law school), and that those scholarship places are funded by an endowment provided by the Paul & Daisy Soros Foundation. Paul is the brother of George Soros, who died in 2013. The foundation don't select the scholarship candidates, Yale do that — they just give a chunk of money each year (the endowment) and Yale use it to fund places for gifted students. Of course the Foundation put Vivek's picture on their website after he became a super successful entrepreneur! They do that with anyone who goes on to make a success of themselves, have a browse on their site.
And *of course* he sought to have this false accusation of connections removed from Wikipedia — you would too. For exactly this reason. You have now decided he is a Soros puppet, when that isn't actually true. But you believe it, because: Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is editable by anyone, and is often used to spread false information. If I were him I'd seek to have it removed too. They also did this to him with the WEF.
WEF just threw his name our there, and Wikipedia and other websites started saying he attended their courses. He did not. He had to take legal action against them to make them stop. [They lost and had to pay him damages].
It's genius really. They just throw their names over any rising talent, and tar them as 'part of the club'. Then, usually only two outcomes are possible from that point onwards: (1) the person is flattered and joins them to become a WEFfie, or (2) the person's reputation is in tatters and therefore the stubbornly non-WEFfie person has their political career cut off at the knees. It's like 'Heads they win; Tails you lose'.
They control the whole field by labelling everyone as 'their people'. Machiavellian, but very effective.
This is precisely why i did not mention the Soros and WEF ties, but they are not even necessary to invoke when establishing a damning profile of this candidate.
Respectfully, some of the claims in this piece are not accurate, or seem to misunderstand how a business like Roivant actually works (or any publicly traded company, tbh).
Example:
"Despite never having created anything in his life other than a series of companies engaged in various blatant scams, Forbes recently estimated Ramaswamy's net worth to be more than $950 million."
Read the first half of that sentence back to yourself. In the same breath you are stating that he has created nothing of value... but also that he has founded a series of companies (one of which is now a multibillion dollar, publicly traded company, Roivant).
The idea for Roivant was genius. You may not *like* the idea, because it's biotech, but the idea itself was killer and that's why people invested. Their pipeline is strong, which is why the stock growth has been strong. The 2022 stock bump was when their promising monoclonal antibody entered PH2 of it's trials, and other pipeline drugs were looking good too. It's not a "scam" or a "ponzi scheme", it's a drug dev company that selects it's candidates from the cutting floor of much bigger firms, and retests them to find the gems.
Not all the drugs they buy the IP turn out to be winners. Some (most actually) fail. But they acquire the IP at very low cost, and with some of the testing already done. Very clever business model.
For every Vivek, they have another 1000 people on the internet running defense for the guy on all forums and settings, as seen above.
First of all - the guy is a joke. He can't run for President any more than Nikki Haley can. He is not the natural born native son of two native born parents. Another Klownworld candidate who isn't even eligible.
What are you angling at? — there is no requirement that one's *parents* be born in the USA, only that *the person running* be a natural born citizen. Check for yourself:
The link to the article you provided says nothing about the definition of a "natural born citizen" -- not only that but you are 100% incorrect. The constitutional definition as affirmed by SCOTUS is a person who is born to two parents who are also U.S. citizens. Feel free to check out my Substack article which explains this important legal question in great detail.
Respectfully, whilst it's fun to do some archaeology about what the Founders *may have meant*, the practical interpretation of the term has been set.
Eight US Presidents have been elected and have served, despite at least 1 of of their parents not being American born.
The most recent of these was President Obama.
So, despite any obscure argumentation, in practicality it has been considered acceptable to simply be born on US soil in order to qualify as a "natural born citizen" (within the confines of this discussion about eligibility to serve as President).
Had you actually read my article, you would know that this is not a question that “the Founders ‘may have meant’.” SCOTUS has clearly affirmed that the definition of “natural born citizen” was well established in Common Law at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution so clearly it is not an “obscure argumentation” as you say. As I stated in my article, the definition was affirmed by SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett.
Also, you are incorrect with your claim that there have been “Eight US Presidents who have been elected and served, despite 1 of their parents not being American born.” There was some controversy surrounding Chester Arthur but we know for sure that Barry violated this qualification as his father was a Kenyan citizen. Your argument that “it has been considered acceptable to simply be born on US soil in order to qualify” is quite troubling.
This attitude is one of the main reasons our Constitutional Republic has been completely destroyed. If the U.S. Constitution is ever to be amended, Article V lays out the ways to do it. When we ignore Article V and just amend the U.S. Constitution by practice or opinion, then the U.S. Constitution means nothing, and we become a lawless nation.
You are referencing a SCOTUS decision from **1875** ....and then ignoring the fact that multiple Presidents have in fact been elected, and served, including as recently as the two terms of President Obama.
Even a basic Wikipedia search would confirm to you that: "Of the 45 individuals who became president, there have been eight that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil."
You are arguing that this is unconstitutional, which is an interesting point of discussion in the academic sense, but in practicality this is irrelevant ...because no serious person is suggesting that Obama and the others have their Presidential status retrospectively revoked (not even sure how that could work) to start implementing a new interpretation of the "natural born citizen" clause.
Again, interesting point of discussion, thank you for taking the time to write about it.
But of course, this is not going to stop either Hayley or Vivek from being able to run, in the same way it did not stop Obama.
In the law, we have this little Latin phrase known as stare decisis, which means that the courts rely on their own precedent. It doesn’t matter that the case was decided in 1875. It’s still precedent. Personally, I would not rely on Wikipedia for anything. The case they are relying on for their information on the matter is from a county court in New York—hardly stare decisis material for SCOTUS.
Still, the most disturbing aspect of your entire argument is that it is consistent with all of the liberal law professors and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution can be amended through opinion and practice. Back in the ’80s, I had to endure listening to those professors all through law school as they told us that the U.S. Constitution is a “living constitution” that changes with the whims of society. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.
You also claim that “no serious person” is arguing for “a new interpretation” of natural born citizen. There are plenty of legal scholars making this argument, and it is not a “new interpretation” as you erroneously claim. It is the original interpretation.
As far as Barry goes, he is the lawless one and having his “Presidential status retrospectively revoked” is the least that should happen. He was the one who claimed that he could legislate with his pen and phone. In constitutional circles, we refer to that as a blatant violation of the Separation of Powers, but by your argument, it’s legally valid since no one objected to it, and don’t even get me started on his assassination of U.S. citizens. Remember, he was the one who said that he was going to “fundamentally transform” the country. From what I’m hearing from you, he’s doing a pretty good job.
Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said that the Framers gave us a Republic, if we can keep it, but that’s the part that everybody remembers. He also didn’t think we could keep it – “I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that it is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” (emphasis added) Benjamin Franklin, Speech in the Constitutional Convention, at the Conclusion of its Deliberations, Delivered September 17, 1787.
We’ve all bought into the political corruption that has completely destroyed our Constitutional Republic just as Franklin predicted as we have turned it into a democratic monstrosity that rules from the top-down instead of a Constitutional Republic that rules from the bottom-up. Again, the tragedy is that so many people like yourself are trying to defend the corruption without even realizing it.
I appreciate your point of view, I'm simply saying — correct as you may be about the purist constitutional interpretations of 1875 — that people on the right always do this ...disappear down rabbit holes and take stances that can be as right as they want, they simply will not win.
If you cannot win, you cannot make changes. The left understands this. The right do not. Even when the right do win, they are too polite (or compromised) to actual do anything about the decades of corruption and decline.
To this point:
"Still, the most disturbing aspect of your entire argument is that it is consistent with all of the liberal law professors and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution can be amended through opinion and practice"
On the contrary. This is not my position.
I would like to have a constitutionalist Paul / Massey style candidate, but we do not have one.
So I am simply unsure what is the value of debating around in circles about these kinds of procedural matters ...when the ball is in play. I'm sure that even is you disagree with me, you can understand what I'm saying. There is little value in shouting from outside the tent that the tent is built incorrectly. You have to get inside the tent, and then start to dismantle the parts that are out of order, and put them back properly. That is my view.
Out of interest, who would you vote for, if you were voting in Iowa today?
I promise you serpent's tongue you will pay for your crimes against the United States, one way or another. Now go and fetch your thirty pieces of silver for your days work.
I can't post that photo of Vivek and Buttigeig on Hardball pretending to be warm blooded mammals but both clearly regime assets for a long, long time. I think these guys were doing two-handers on a congo line for years before somebody suggested they use these towelboys as fake candidates. Get wise people, they're laughing at you.
Vivek appears with Pete Buttigeig as a trusted resource planted in audiences and used as operatives on psyops for more than 20 years. A special pet of George Soros, listed on his site originally. Needed his Wikipedia page heavily edited to conceal all of this. Shill is shilling.
That's just factually inaccurate.
He is not a "special pet of George Soros". The only connection he has to anyone named Soros is that he won a full academic scholarship for post-grad (Yale law school), and that those scholarship places are funded by an endowment provided by the Paul & Daisy Soros Foundation. Paul is the brother of George Soros, who died in 2013. The foundation don't select the scholarship candidates, Yale do that — they just give a chunk of money each year (the endowment) and Yale use it to fund places for gifted students. Of course the Foundation put Vivek's picture on their website after he became a super successful entrepreneur! They do that with anyone who goes on to make a success of themselves, have a browse on their site.
And *of course* he sought to have this false accusation of connections removed from Wikipedia — you would too. For exactly this reason. You have now decided he is a Soros puppet, when that isn't actually true. But you believe it, because: Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is editable by anyone, and is often used to spread false information. If I were him I'd seek to have it removed too. They also did this to him with the WEF.
WEF just threw his name our there, and Wikipedia and other websites started saying he attended their courses. He did not. He had to take legal action against them to make them stop. [They lost and had to pay him damages].
It's genius really. They just throw their names over any rising talent, and tar them as 'part of the club'. Then, usually only two outcomes are possible from that point onwards: (1) the person is flattered and joins them to become a WEFfie, or (2) the person's reputation is in tatters and therefore the stubbornly non-WEFfie person has their political career cut off at the knees. It's like 'Heads they win; Tails you lose'.
They control the whole field by labelling everyone as 'their people'. Machiavellian, but very effective.
This is precisely why i did not mention the Soros and WEF ties, but they are not even necessary to invoke when establishing a damning profile of this candidate.
Respectfully, some of the claims in this piece are not accurate, or seem to misunderstand how a business like Roivant actually works (or any publicly traded company, tbh).
Example:
"Despite never having created anything in his life other than a series of companies engaged in various blatant scams, Forbes recently estimated Ramaswamy's net worth to be more than $950 million."
Read the first half of that sentence back to yourself. In the same breath you are stating that he has created nothing of value... but also that he has founded a series of companies (one of which is now a multibillion dollar, publicly traded company, Roivant).
The idea for Roivant was genius. You may not *like* the idea, because it's biotech, but the idea itself was killer and that's why people invested. Their pipeline is strong, which is why the stock growth has been strong. The 2022 stock bump was when their promising monoclonal antibody entered PH2 of it's trials, and other pipeline drugs were looking good too. It's not a "scam" or a "ponzi scheme", it's a drug dev company that selects it's candidates from the cutting floor of much bigger firms, and retests them to find the gems.
Not all the drugs they buy the IP turn out to be winners. Some (most actually) fail. But they acquire the IP at very low cost, and with some of the testing already done. Very clever business model.
For every Vivek, they have another 1000 people on the internet running defense for the guy on all forums and settings, as seen above.
First of all - the guy is a joke. He can't run for President any more than Nikki Haley can. He is not the natural born native son of two native born parents. Another Klownworld candidate who isn't even eligible.
Remember, God is not the author of confusion.
You have stated that more than once.
What are you angling at? — there is no requirement that one's *parents* be born in the USA, only that *the person running* be a natural born citizen. Check for yourself:
https://www.usa.gov/requirements-for-presidential-candidates
Both Vivek and Nikki are natural born citizens of the USA.
Nikki is a complete dolt and a warmongering RINO, but she is eligible to run. So is Vivek.
Isn't the Supreme Court hearing a case regarding "natural born" citizen?
The link to the article you provided says nothing about the definition of a "natural born citizen" -- not only that but you are 100% incorrect. The constitutional definition as affirmed by SCOTUS is a person who is born to two parents who are also U.S. citizens. Feel free to check out my Substack article which explains this important legal question in great detail.
https://open.substack.com/pub/madamepublius/p/this-people-draw-near-to-me-with?r=2fkpo3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Respectfully, whilst it's fun to do some archaeology about what the Founders *may have meant*, the practical interpretation of the term has been set.
Eight US Presidents have been elected and have served, despite at least 1 of of their parents not being American born.
The most recent of these was President Obama.
So, despite any obscure argumentation, in practicality it has been considered acceptable to simply be born on US soil in order to qualify as a "natural born citizen" (within the confines of this discussion about eligibility to serve as President).
Had you actually read my article, you would know that this is not a question that “the Founders ‘may have meant’.” SCOTUS has clearly affirmed that the definition of “natural born citizen” was well established in Common Law at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution so clearly it is not an “obscure argumentation” as you say. As I stated in my article, the definition was affirmed by SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett.
Also, you are incorrect with your claim that there have been “Eight US Presidents who have been elected and served, despite 1 of their parents not being American born.” There was some controversy surrounding Chester Arthur but we know for sure that Barry violated this qualification as his father was a Kenyan citizen. Your argument that “it has been considered acceptable to simply be born on US soil in order to qualify” is quite troubling.
This attitude is one of the main reasons our Constitutional Republic has been completely destroyed. If the U.S. Constitution is ever to be amended, Article V lays out the ways to do it. When we ignore Article V and just amend the U.S. Constitution by practice or opinion, then the U.S. Constitution means nothing, and we become a lawless nation.
Madame, your argumentation is indeed obscure.
You are referencing a SCOTUS decision from **1875** ....and then ignoring the fact that multiple Presidents have in fact been elected, and served, including as recently as the two terms of President Obama.
Even a basic Wikipedia search would confirm to you that: "Of the 45 individuals who became president, there have been eight that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)
You are arguing that this is unconstitutional, which is an interesting point of discussion in the academic sense, but in practicality this is irrelevant ...because no serious person is suggesting that Obama and the others have their Presidential status retrospectively revoked (not even sure how that could work) to start implementing a new interpretation of the "natural born citizen" clause.
Again, interesting point of discussion, thank you for taking the time to write about it.
But of course, this is not going to stop either Hayley or Vivek from being able to run, in the same way it did not stop Obama.
In the law, we have this little Latin phrase known as stare decisis, which means that the courts rely on their own precedent. It doesn’t matter that the case was decided in 1875. It’s still precedent. Personally, I would not rely on Wikipedia for anything. The case they are relying on for their information on the matter is from a county court in New York—hardly stare decisis material for SCOTUS.
Still, the most disturbing aspect of your entire argument is that it is consistent with all of the liberal law professors and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution can be amended through opinion and practice. Back in the ’80s, I had to endure listening to those professors all through law school as they told us that the U.S. Constitution is a “living constitution” that changes with the whims of society. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.
You also claim that “no serious person” is arguing for “a new interpretation” of natural born citizen. There are plenty of legal scholars making this argument, and it is not a “new interpretation” as you erroneously claim. It is the original interpretation.
As far as Barry goes, he is the lawless one and having his “Presidential status retrospectively revoked” is the least that should happen. He was the one who claimed that he could legislate with his pen and phone. In constitutional circles, we refer to that as a blatant violation of the Separation of Powers, but by your argument, it’s legally valid since no one objected to it, and don’t even get me started on his assassination of U.S. citizens. Remember, he was the one who said that he was going to “fundamentally transform” the country. From what I’m hearing from you, he’s doing a pretty good job.
Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said that the Framers gave us a Republic, if we can keep it, but that’s the part that everybody remembers. He also didn’t think we could keep it – “I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that it is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” (emphasis added) Benjamin Franklin, Speech in the Constitutional Convention, at the Conclusion of its Deliberations, Delivered September 17, 1787.
We’ve all bought into the political corruption that has completely destroyed our Constitutional Republic just as Franklin predicted as we have turned it into a democratic monstrosity that rules from the top-down instead of a Constitutional Republic that rules from the bottom-up. Again, the tragedy is that so many people like yourself are trying to defend the corruption without even realizing it.
I appreciate your point of view, I'm simply saying — correct as you may be about the purist constitutional interpretations of 1875 — that people on the right always do this ...disappear down rabbit holes and take stances that can be as right as they want, they simply will not win.
If you cannot win, you cannot make changes. The left understands this. The right do not. Even when the right do win, they are too polite (or compromised) to actual do anything about the decades of corruption and decline.
To this point:
"Still, the most disturbing aspect of your entire argument is that it is consistent with all of the liberal law professors and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution can be amended through opinion and practice"
On the contrary. This is not my position.
I would like to have a constitutionalist Paul / Massey style candidate, but we do not have one.
So I am simply unsure what is the value of debating around in circles about these kinds of procedural matters ...when the ball is in play. I'm sure that even is you disagree with me, you can understand what I'm saying. There is little value in shouting from outside the tent that the tent is built incorrectly. You have to get inside the tent, and then start to dismantle the parts that are out of order, and put them back properly. That is my view.
Out of interest, who would you vote for, if you were voting in Iowa today?
I see you
Blocking
Why?
That seems a bit childish tbh..
You obviously just made a mistake (misunderstanding the requirements for running) — it's not the end of the world. We all make mistakes.
There's no need to block me, and I would suggest to you that this is an overreaction.
I promise you serpent's tongue you will pay for your crimes against the United States, one way or another. Now go and fetch your thirty pieces of silver for your days work.
Not buying it...
I can't post that photo of Vivek and Buttigeig on Hardball pretending to be warm blooded mammals but both clearly regime assets for a long, long time. I think these guys were doing two-handers on a congo line for years before somebody suggested they use these towelboys as fake candidates. Get wise people, they're laughing at you.
https://knowyourmeme.com/news/vivek-ramaswamy-and-pete-buttigieg-were-on-the-same-msnbc-show-in-2003