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.
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? тАФ 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 тАЬthe Founders тАШmay have meantтАЩ.тАЭ SCOTUS has clearly affirmed that the definition of тАЬnatural born citizenтАЭ was well established in Common Law at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution so clearly it is not an тАЬobscure argumentationтАЭ 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 тАЬEight US Presidents who have been elected and served, despite 1 of their parents not being American born.тАЭ 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 тАЬit has been considered acceptable to simply be born on US soil in order to qualifyтАЭ 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 doesnтАЩt matter that the case was decided in 1875. ItтАЩs 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 YorkтАФhardly 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 тАЩ80s, I had to endure listening to those professors all through law school as they told us that the U.S. Constitution is a тАЬliving constitutionтАЭ that changes with the whims of society. They were wrong then, and theyтАЩre wrong now.
You also claim that тАЬno serious personтАЭ is arguing for тАЬa new interpretationтАЭ of natural born citizen. There are plenty of legal scholars making this argument, and it is not a тАЬnew interpretationтАЭ as you erroneously claim. It is the original interpretation.
As far as Barry goes, he is the lawless one and having his тАЬPresidential status retrospectively revokedтАЭ 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, itтАЩs legally valid since no one objected to it, and donтАЩt even get me started on his assassination of U.S. citizens. Remember, he was the one who said that he was going to тАЬfundamentally transformтАЭ the country. From what IтАЩm hearing from you, heтАЩs 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 thatтАЩs the part that everybody remembers. He also didnтАЩt think we could keep it тАУ тАЬI 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.тАЭ (emphasis added) Benjamin Franklin, Speech in the Constitutional Convention, at the Conclusion of its Deliberations, Delivered September 17, 1787.
WeтАЩve 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 тАФ correct as you may be about the purist constitutional interpretations of 1875 тАФ 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?
IтАЩm glad to hear that your stated position is not the same as the liberal law professors when I attended law school, but your analogy about тАЬthe tentтАЭ still seems to support the status quo. Yes, I am a тАЬpuristтАЭ and will not change. I had a law professor scream in face once that тАЬyou canтАЩt change the system without working within the system.тАЭ My response to her was simply, тАЬwell, itтАЩs a good thing George Washington didnтАЩt feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.тАЭ
When taking on the status quo, Christ pointed out as well that it is impossible to тАЬpour new wine into old bottles.тАЭ Even with a Paul/Massey ticket (and for the record, Massey isnтАЩt someone I would consider to be a constitutional purist), it is still impossible to change the system by working within it. The status quo seeks self-preservation above all else.
When you get тАЬinside the tentтАЭ you become part of the tent. The only way to тАЬdismantle the partsтАЭ of the status quo in order to be able to тАЬput them back properlyтАЭ is to listen to what the Framers had to say in this regard тАУ from the Declaration of Independence to The Federalist Papers and elsewhere. When тАЬthe representatives of the people betray their constituents,тАЭ then we must тАЬexertтАЭ what Hamilton called тАЬthe original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.тАЭ Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 28, ┬╢6. We have spent way too much time listening to crooks, thieves, and traitors instead of listening to the Framers.
As far as your last question, I donтАЩt and never have participated in the unconstitutional presidential elections that we now operate under. As I noted in a prior article, we become so vested in the party and the personality that we completely lose our allegiance to our U.S. Constitution in a popularity contest between personalities spouting off the best one-liners.
Yet, under our Constitution, the President was never meant to be elected by popular vote. When we participate in the current, corrupt form of presidential elections, we are merely perpetuating a perverted procedure of constitutional government to our own detriment тАУ a government that the consolidators have sold to us under the deceptive allure of democratic machinations in order to subvert and undermine our great Republic.
A тАЬsmall numberтАЭ of electors were supposed to be тАЬchosen by the people for the special purposeтАЭ of selecting the US President. These delegates were to be тАЬchosen in each State, [and were] to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosenтАЭ without any influence from the tyrannical 51% majority of popular elections. Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 68, ┬╢4. The idea was to keep the power in the hands of the individual states and not in the hands of a small group of power-hungry maniacs who run the two-party/Uniparty American political system.
I appreciate all that, but what are you actually suggesting then?
"My response to her was simply, тАЬwell, itтАЩs a good thing George Washington didnтАЩt feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.тАЭ...
I mean... are you hoping for armed revolution? You're refusing to vote until the next revolutionary war takes place, and another George Washington can come along off the back end of that war?
I get your point about how things *should* be, but I'm unclear on what the next steps are from your position.
It sounds like you've decided you don't like the game play, so you're gonna take your ball and go home. Which is your right. But another revolutionary war is not happening anytime soon, so I don't really understand the thinking of just sitting on the sidelines shouting into the middle distance about how everyone is doing it wrong. At some point, someone with this view has to actually get up and go do something.
Personally, I think the Founders would not have just carped from the sidelines in our situation. I think they would be out there making forceful arguments, debating, and trying to win people over to their view to build a consensus for their plans. Just my two cents.
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.
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? тАФ 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 тАЬthe Founders тАШmay have meantтАЩ.тАЭ SCOTUS has clearly affirmed that the definition of тАЬnatural born citizenтАЭ was well established in Common Law at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution so clearly it is not an тАЬobscure argumentationтАЭ 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 тАЬEight US Presidents who have been elected and served, despite 1 of their parents not being American born.тАЭ 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 тАЬit has been considered acceptable to simply be born on US soil in order to qualifyтАЭ 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 doesnтАЩt matter that the case was decided in 1875. ItтАЩs 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 YorkтАФhardly 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 тАЩ80s, I had to endure listening to those professors all through law school as they told us that the U.S. Constitution is a тАЬliving constitutionтАЭ that changes with the whims of society. They were wrong then, and theyтАЩre wrong now.
You also claim that тАЬno serious personтАЭ is arguing for тАЬa new interpretationтАЭ of natural born citizen. There are plenty of legal scholars making this argument, and it is not a тАЬnew interpretationтАЭ as you erroneously claim. It is the original interpretation.
As far as Barry goes, he is the lawless one and having his тАЬPresidential status retrospectively revokedтАЭ 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, itтАЩs legally valid since no one objected to it, and donтАЩt even get me started on his assassination of U.S. citizens. Remember, he was the one who said that he was going to тАЬfundamentally transformтАЭ the country. From what IтАЩm hearing from you, heтАЩs 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 thatтАЩs the part that everybody remembers. He also didnтАЩt think we could keep it тАУ тАЬI 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.тАЭ (emphasis added) Benjamin Franklin, Speech in the Constitutional Convention, at the Conclusion of its Deliberations, Delivered September 17, 1787.
WeтАЩve 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 тАФ correct as you may be about the purist constitutional interpretations of 1875 тАФ 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?
IтАЩm glad to hear that your stated position is not the same as the liberal law professors when I attended law school, but your analogy about тАЬthe tentтАЭ still seems to support the status quo. Yes, I am a тАЬpuristтАЭ and will not change. I had a law professor scream in face once that тАЬyou canтАЩt change the system without working within the system.тАЭ My response to her was simply, тАЬwell, itтАЩs a good thing George Washington didnтАЩt feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.тАЭ
When taking on the status quo, Christ pointed out as well that it is impossible to тАЬpour new wine into old bottles.тАЭ Even with a Paul/Massey ticket (and for the record, Massey isnтАЩt someone I would consider to be a constitutional purist), it is still impossible to change the system by working within it. The status quo seeks self-preservation above all else.
When you get тАЬinside the tentтАЭ you become part of the tent. The only way to тАЬdismantle the partsтАЭ of the status quo in order to be able to тАЬput them back properlyтАЭ is to listen to what the Framers had to say in this regard тАУ from the Declaration of Independence to The Federalist Papers and elsewhere. When тАЬthe representatives of the people betray their constituents,тАЭ then we must тАЬexertтАЭ what Hamilton called тАЬthe original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.тАЭ Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 28, ┬╢6. We have spent way too much time listening to crooks, thieves, and traitors instead of listening to the Framers.
As far as your last question, I donтАЩt and never have participated in the unconstitutional presidential elections that we now operate under. As I noted in a prior article, we become so vested in the party and the personality that we completely lose our allegiance to our U.S. Constitution in a popularity contest between personalities spouting off the best one-liners.
Yet, under our Constitution, the President was never meant to be elected by popular vote. When we participate in the current, corrupt form of presidential elections, we are merely perpetuating a perverted procedure of constitutional government to our own detriment тАУ a government that the consolidators have sold to us under the deceptive allure of democratic machinations in order to subvert and undermine our great Republic.
A тАЬsmall numberтАЭ of electors were supposed to be тАЬchosen by the people for the special purposeтАЭ of selecting the US President. These delegates were to be тАЬchosen in each State, [and were] to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosenтАЭ without any influence from the tyrannical 51% majority of popular elections. Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 68, ┬╢4. The idea was to keep the power in the hands of the individual states and not in the hands of a small group of power-hungry maniacs who run the two-party/Uniparty American political system.
I appreciate all that, but what are you actually suggesting then?
"My response to her was simply, тАЬwell, itтАЩs a good thing George Washington didnтАЩt feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.тАЭ...
I mean... are you hoping for armed revolution? You're refusing to vote until the next revolutionary war takes place, and another George Washington can come along off the back end of that war?
I get your point about how things *should* be, but I'm unclear on what the next steps are from your position.
It sounds like you've decided you don't like the game play, so you're gonna take your ball and go home. Which is your right. But another revolutionary war is not happening anytime soon, so I don't really understand the thinking of just sitting on the sidelines shouting into the middle distance about how everyone is doing it wrong. At some point, someone with this view has to actually get up and go do something.
Personally, I think the Founders would not have just carped from the sidelines in our situation. I think they would be out there making forceful arguments, debating, and trying to win people over to their view to build a consensus for their plans. Just my two cents.
I see you
Blocking
Why?
That seems a bit childish tbh..
You obviously just made a mistake (misunderstanding the requirements for running) тАФ 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