Fun fact: the old-fashioned word for "brotherhood" is.... sodality.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodality

Sucks,

Yours,

Beep/Bop/Boop

Of course, it's California: https://nypost.com/2021/03/01/poly-throuple-makes-history-3-dads-on-a-birth-certificate/

20% of the people reading this insanity are going to think it's some Star Trek "journey" into the future.

The other 80% are going to staring at the screen in total, utter horror, like they are seeing Mengele's ideas come to life in a haze of metrosexual fashion.

"First, they had to find a surrogate. Luckily, their friend Delilah offered to carry their child. Then came the lawyers. The embryos needed to be adopted so that each man would have equal parental rights. It was a rare case: Third parents are usually added on to birth certificates after the fact, not at the time of the birth. It didn’t help that one of the embryos wasn’t viable, and another didn’t properly implant. The process had to start all over. This time, a friend named Meghan came to the rescue and donated her eggs to the trio."

So there were 2 mothers; miscarriages; registering births before, ahem, birth; and this gem:

"Too often, they felt like outsiders, even when providing their sperm samples: Jenkins says the visual aids on offer were geared toward heterosexual men. "

YOU THINK?

Everyone involved in this needs to be prosecuted - the 3 men, the 2 mothers, the doctors, the lawyers.

I had a good read about Ayers, and the roles his collaborators are now playing. I was stunned. Absolutely stunned. Some of them are still on the the FBI's Most Wanted list, hanging out in Cuba. It's unconscionable they are where they are. Redemption is one thing, but it involves repentance first.

Sidebar question, as i'm not really old enough to know. I'm interested in what the idealistic theory was behind these 60s' radicals, and how ti still pertains to the DNC in 2021 now those Vietnam students are in power. They had this upbringing on the "Alternative Society" of the USSR it seems - something that was shattered with the reality of Stalin's gulags.

Do you know what it was they were sold on, which turned them into these people? Obviously there was anti-war anti-draft sentiment, and the Marcuse books, but what exactly was it they believed the US should be turned into? Did they see something in the USSR they thought the US could learn from? Sorry if that sounds naive, but in the UK, for example, the Great Game in Asia and the Cold War never gave anyone any idealistic notions of the Alternative Society.

This is so well-written it's a loss to our industry over here in CA. It needs to be in the Spectator or the New Yorker - beautifully explained. I wish it had been articulated this way at the time.

The UK PM got in a lot of hot water when he pointed out his removal of Churchill's bust from the Oval may have been due to his anti-British sentiment from the Empire days. Boy was that a shitstorm, but he was onto something.

I'd posit the reasoning was grotesquely simple: he's charismatic and looks good on TV. I'd speculate the DNC did their calculations on the growing black vote, and capitalised on anti-war sentiment against the GOP. He was a symbolic choice the TV chat shows love, and plays well to the crowd as the "fashionable" polished folk hero. It's straight out of a casting workshop: they were already looking, and accelerated him through the casting process.

Another line of thought is the ascent of Critical Race Theory (aka Marxism applied to race relations) in the law schools during the late 80s. The injection of crock-degree sociology (e.g. "Cultural Theory", "Postcolonial theory", "Intersectionality" etc) into law with the 2nd generation of black university students presumably created a new energy source of activism within the Dems. We've allowed that crap in the universities for at least 30 years, and we're paying for it with hundreds of thousands of activists who chose easy degrees requiring no thought at all.

That said, there is yet another line here which people have been pointing out: the transference of religious yearnings onto political activism. Obama, for me at least, has always had a certain "Messiah" characterisation about him on the Left; the way their highly vocal activists fall into line in silence when he speaks, the religious zealotry about his crusades and defense of his doublethink policies, and even throwing Killary under the bus for Secretary of State. The graphs of this culture nonsense spike in 2014, where mentions of BLM etc go from 2000 to 30,000 in a year after Ferguson.

The US is so huge it's hard to contemplate the melting point. The Dems seem to think they are a social democratic country of 60 million people surrounded by rednecks, and blacks seem to think they are an African country of 20 million people who want the continent for themselves, and the other 100 million seem to be sitting there thinking "wtf? just leave me alone".

You're tapping on something very interesting here: what do you do with those who fall through the cracks? We have 160,000 homeless people, of which 20k+ are "chronic" cases in LA. The situation has got so bad that we're looking at camps being required to deal with it. Spiraling rent costs and economic issues account for a portion of those who can get back up and improve their lives with help and support, but there are tens of thousands with serious mental health problems who are never, ever going back into economic productivity.

What do you do with unemployable people? Where do they fit in a society of ever-rising living costs, other than collectivise in cities where the economic opportunity is concentrated?

Also very keen to hear about the dirty tricks. We need a glossary of them.

This is an excellent write-up that deserves its own column somewhere if it's not there in some form already. What i got from that was an undercurrent of deceit.

I didn't have an opinion on Obama particularly - i remember seeing his inaug in London and everyone was joking "please don't get shot". But it seemed fairly fluid and innocuous. Spending time with patriot friends opened my eyes in a big way: the drones strikes on families in Asia, the 1000 deportations per day, the suppression of whistleblowers, the refusal to deal with Ferguson, the socialized medicine drive which tripled my wife's insurance, and so on. The birther thing seemed absurd, as it would to anyone who didn't know about the bureaucratic scamming of those days in Hawaii that you mentioned. In the Commonwealth at least, all birth records are public, without exception (i can order anyone's birth cert for any reason) - for genealogical purposes. You can trace back to about the 17th century, and then you have to go to parish churches and graveyards.

What did hit me was a friend in Virginia saying "something really changed in this country" about his presidency. I didn't have enough to really understand the context at the time, but i've been here long enough, and known the situation long enough over the last 10 years, to see that's very true. Identity politics have catastrophically metastasized.

I think your take on it seems perfectly plausible, and reasonably sympathetic. But it does dig at the cynical operational mechanics of the DNC: why lie? Why let that be the default reaction?

Now assuming your take, what would you say is your issue with the situation? It sounds like it may be the same as mine - the issue of deception. If it wasn't going to change the election result, is it simply a matter of knowing the unvarnished truth, because the truth should be known?

As with everything in law it's going to come down to the definitions, isn't it? At the least you could call him a potentate, if not necessarily a diplomat. I wonder how it was in those days. Everyone was at least of some English descent, so the prohibitions in the law had to stop foreign barons and lords from assuming control of the new republic. I have to say though, the idea of the monarchy standing for the presidency is almost as nuclear as GEOTUS's 2nd term.

I'm not so sure. They're specifically prohibited from carrying out any representation of the UK, and have had to renounce titles and duties. The Queen, Head of State, has made it clear they aren't allowed to perform in any diplomatic character: https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/final-harry-meghan-return-working-royals-75993743

Which is good news for the UK, as Harry is a fucking idiot. They've already done enough damage. UK policy has always been the same to all government officials: don't interfere with US politics.

I saw three of these yesterday on a walk. All i could think was "what in the fuck?" Would you would mount this shit on your lawn for strangers, other than to avoid being looted?

https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1365788749335044096

This was all decided a month ago, not tonight. Not doxxing myself here to say how i know that. He's running.

Iron rule of politics: you have to "answer people's call" to serve in public office, not announce your ideas to ascend. The recall has multiple stages and will take months. You don't put yourself out there unless you know it's certain (i.e. when the special election for succession has been called). It's not time to do that yet. He's gearing up appearances to check support.

I'm coming at this from someone who is entirely ignorant of the details, so the info is really appreciated. My own suspicion after watching this last election is the DNC is a criminal enterprise which needs RICO-level prosecution.

Your methodology and conclusion seems reasonable to me. The official story felt weird even on a superficial level when i looked at it to copy/paste - so many references in that lefty site made it immediately seem off, like a journal paper trying to prove its case.

The bigamy thing is extraordinary in how they ignored that. It's not remotely surprising a foreign student would marry a citizen to stay, or get someone pregnant accidentally and marry them.

Devil's advocate questions though, for rigor:

1. What are the chances it was incompetence or stupidity, rather than anything suspicious?

2. Are there forensic ways to definitively prove the older documents are forgeries, and the date they were forged?

3. Would it have changed his eligibility for presidential candidacy?

The one story i find it incredibly hard to believe is any travel out of the country, particularly to Kenya. It would make sense to register the birth there too, as it was British at the time and our system require foreign births to be registered before the child's 18th birthday to be recognised as citizens.

Occam's razor: it sounds like a kid was born in Hawaii and nobody bothered to register the birth. But when proof was needed a few years later (travel docs or entitlements), they had to go back and do it retrospectively. And made an amateur mess of it. It seems more likely that a mistake was made by the parents than a foreign citizen registered maliciously.

I read that. Very interesting question! Doesn't a diplomat have to be recognised as such though? I guess it would depend on which visa Harry approached the border with. IR1 would make him an ordinary LPR, but the A category would make him nonimmigrant (potentially military).

Look forward to seeing your thoughts mangled in some dumbass Vox article by a blue-haired TD visitor: "White Supremacists want to cancel Archie Windsor, explained".

Likewise. The objective truth is the goal, and it seems like you've got a scientific eye on this. So let me interrogate your hypothesis a bit. This is what we need -forensics. Let's use Leftipedia as our narrative centre-point, as its the least likely to support your view.

"Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii. He was born to an American mother of European descent and an African father. His mother, Ann Dunham (1942–1995), was born in Wichita, Kansas. Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr. (1936–1982), was a married Luo Kenyan of the Jok'Obama sub-clan from Nyang'oma Kogelo. Obama's parents met in 1960 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was a foreign student on a scholarship.The couple married in Wailuku, Hawaii, on February 2, 1961, six months before Obama was born."

Immediate question:

1. Are these details correct, and what evidence do we have to support it?

2. Which document is being referred to here?

Fun fact, you have to do this at the US naturalisation oath anyway. The way we get around this is the UK has to recognise that renunciation for it to be effective, and we have a "lifeboat" mechanism where you can take it up again, only once. There's a formal process to it: https://www.gov.uk/renounce-british-nationality

So you can ask me to renounce my UK citizenship all you want. I'll do it in a Mexican hat, naked, shitting on a picture of the monarchy if you want. No problem. If the UK gov doesn't recognise that, it doesn't matter; still a Brit, womp womp.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Only a Sith thinks like this. And i'm picking up the "dual loyalty" antisemitic trope.

That is NOT what Jesus was referring to. He was talking about materialism vs spiritual growth.

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

You're most welcome as you articulate it brilliantly: the Native American thing actually makes total sense, as does the requirement for 2 native parents. It would be the most reasonable demand. Now that said, it doesn't swing me on the merits of the case if i'm honest. It seems too much of a technical fringe to be hanging a hat on; not to mention the PR nightmare of the "Birther" tag.

But now i'm very curious. I didn't follow the Obama birth certificate thing as it just seemed like crankery, but i'm going to assume you know stuff i don't here. Can you share what it was which led you to believe it was fraudulently manufactured? I'm not saying i don't believe it, but it seems unlikely to me, and i'd like to know the empirical case for it. Genuinely interested.

You know what's crazy about this? He's publicly admitted it was a matter of unprincipled bribery who their vote was cast for. Oh really? Then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote next time.

This is where Win shines. The rare, salient post bringing in the nuance. Thanks, Pede. The law is an absolute ass and it's inexplicable how this gets drawn out in such a way. The other side of that 14A argument is that it should have been phrased "subject exclusively to its jurisdiction" to avoid misinterpretation, and the lack of that implies the opposite.

Is there any more ridiculous a sentence than *"...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes" *?

That's the spirit!

That's difficult (from what i know) because there's limits on executive power and what he can do alone, but what i do know about Ric is he's nuclear.

Or FIND them

Lizard people?

Can i choose which one?

Where do you think they made this clever plan and set up this secret conspiracy? I mean actual dates and times where they all sat down and decided the whole family would marry into the lizard halls of power.

Yep, he can. His mother is American, making him a natural born US citizen as well as a British. So yes, he can grow up to be POTUS. And no, they weren't. But in those days you didn't just fly from country to country.

Seriously, why is this so hard to grasp?