Don G. Dinsdale Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)

Explosive PROOF Hillary R****d E******n!?

The Horn News * Dec 5, 2016

Throughout the 2016 p**********l e******n, President-elect Donald Trump warned repeatedly that his opponent, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, would attempt to undermine the v****g process.

According to some critics, one e******n observer has stumbled on the bombshell proof that Clinton attempted to rig the e******n they’d been waiting for.

During the controversial Wisconsin e******n recount forced by Green Party candidate Jill Stein initiated Friday, one observer noticed a number of small stickers that were torn on the e******n machines — and the implications are alarming.

A volunteer e******n observer going by the name Wendy reported that in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, five of the nine machines being used in the recount have tampered seals.

She posted four pictures as evidence to prove it — two of the broken seals, and the corresponding machine’s serial numbers.

This isn’t the first time Wisconsin v****g results have been highly controversial, either. In April, Trump supporters accused the establishment of rigging the primary against their candidate.

Additionally, there remains widespread belief among Trump supporters that the president-elect received a greater share of v**es than was reported.

In Wisconsin, T***p w*n by a razor thin 0.8%.

If v****g machines were indeed tampered with, as this e******n recount observer’s pictures imply, that belief gains significant credibility.

— The Horn Editorial Team

http://thehornnews.com/explosive-proof-hillary-r****d-e******n/

pafret Loc: Northeast

What these people have uncovered is that total assholes with an agenda will say anything. Broken seals are proof of just that, the seals are broken. There is no evidence presented that the output of these machines do not match some other count which was not tampered with. Without that you have no evidence of tampering, just suspicion. Even after you find some reason to charge tampering, who says it was Hillary? It might have been Trump.

Mikeyavelli

It was Hillary. Crooked Hillary. Liar Hillary. She's been lying since she first wore diapers.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Yes, I would believe that too but that article provided no proof, just accusations.

skopii

Reports suggest that Trump, won more than 50% of v****g females; and more than 50% of the v****g males. If this is true, how is it possible for Clinton, to have more than 50% of the v**es cast?

Perhaps we should ALL v**e via Absentee B****t. All duly registered "Citizens" receive an absentee b****t, via the US Mail. We v**e, address, sign and return the b****t, by the established deadline, via the US Mail to V**er Central for Supervised counting and spot checks against the Official "Duly Registered Citizen's Registry." One v**e only, checked against the "Citizen's Registry." If you didn't receive a b****t, go to your Post Office or Library and sign for one.
1. An Official Paper Trail would be left for accuracy checking and other examinations.
2. It would dismantle any "Party Machines" from engaging in any Collusive, Criminal V****g Fraud.
3. Registered "Citizen" v**ers would v**e from their homes.
4. More seniors and incapicated would v**e.
5. No intimidations, no waiting in lines; a less costly and more efficient system, that dismantles the power hungry party machines.
6. Research candidates policies from your home and make your own v****g decisions.
7. Prosecute any/all Criminal Criminal Behaviors.
While here, I ask you to consider a Political Corruption Solution, that I hope goes V***l; which is One Term Only. Kindly remember to "V**e Incumbents OUT!" Thank You.

JimMe

pafret...
The recount is a Legal Process... The machines are sealed to protect the integrity of its contents, much like evidence in a felony case are sealed... When the seal in the felony is broken, the Court finds that the evidence has been c*********d by at least one someone, and the evidence is not used in the case ("thrown out" is the common term used in novels and films)... So, any machine with a broken seal (broken by Clinton people, Trump people, or Independent people does not matter) should not be used to recount v**es... The counts that were tallied prior to the recount would be the totals used...

pafret Loc: Northeast

That makes sense but it still doesn't prove Hillary did it. Logically, if she had r****d the v**e to begin with, and those bogus b****ts were passable f**es, she would have no desire to cause the count to be questioned. Only if she or her cohorts knew those particular machines were the ones with unquestionable evidence that the Democrats tried to steal the e******n would this desirable. Of course the same can be said of Trump and his supporters.

I don't know enough about the mechanics of the v**e collection process to say if this is the case. Someone definitely doesn't want the v**es in those machines examined.

All this being said, I am not playing Ostrich; the Democratic party has been proved to be involved in v**e stealing, v****g the dead, the illegal and the multiple v**e people so many times in the past it is a high probability they did it again. They are also the people who steadfastly refuse to permit any kind of ID requirement to v**e. All of their arguments about disenfranchising minorities is bull. The only people who would be disenfranchised are those i******s and dead guys.

I hope when Trump begins his case by case evaluations, of i******s they determine whether they ever v**ed. If so they and their families should be deported and refused any further entry to this country. Any anchor babies should be stripped of citizenship since such citizenship was unconstitutional to begin with.

JimMe

I see your points and think they're sound, except for your very last sentence... Anchor babies are born USA Citizens by virtue of being born in the USA...

And according to the INA (Immigration and Naturalization Act) § 349... Unless a USA Citizen at birth has themselves revoked their USA Citizenship or has been found guilty of treason, they cannot be stripped of their USA Citizenship... Their parents' lack of USA Citizenship or criminal offenses cannot affect their USA Citizenship...

An anchor baby's USA Citizenship is not Unconstitutional because of anything their parents ever do...

pafret Loc: Northeast

According to the US Constitution any child born to parents subject to a foreign power is not a citizen. There is no denying the two illegal parents are subjects of foreign powers hence these children are not citizens. It matters not one iota what some mistaken department says about this, it is not constitutional. It is the same as the State Department permitting dual citizenship. The oath of naturalization requires the prospective citizen to abjure any allegiance to their former nations. The State Department is responsible for enforcing this requirement but in their determination to destroy this nation those c*******ts now permit dual citizenship. It is not constitutional.

JimMe

Where in the US Constitution or any Amendment does it say "... any child born to parents subject to a foreign power is not a citizen..."?!? Thr Article and Section of the US Constitution or the Amendment number will do...

pafret Loc: Northeast

I was partially right -- the 14th amendment is the pertinent one and the discussion below it shows some of the problems with any interpretations. There is considerable controversy over this clause. It is certain that children of Diplomats are not citizens, but the clause has been interpreted both ways with regard to children of non citizen parents. Illegal entry complicates the whole situation even further and will undoubtedly require a Supreme court decision and possible 14th amendment revision for clarity.

Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Discussion:

While the Citizenship Clause was intended to define as citizens exactly those so defined in the Civil Rights Act,[3][10] which had been debated and passed in the same session of Congress only several months earlier, the clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, phrased it a little differently. In particular, the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed", were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and while Howard and others, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the author of the Civil Rights Act, believed that the formulations were equivalent, others, such as Senator James R. Doolittle from Wisconsin, disagreed, and pushed for an alternative wording.[11]
There was no recorded debate over who was encompassed by the expression "not subject to any foreign power" or whether these same people were excluded by the wording of the Citizenship Clause. Howard, when introducing the addition to the Amendment, stated that it was "the law of the land already" and that it excluded only "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers".[12] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[13][14] However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Trumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on them at birth,[15][16][17] and no senator offered a contrary opinion. Trumbull even went so far as to assert that this was already true prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, although Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, disagreed, stating that this was only true for the children of Caucasian immigrants.[15] Senator John Conness of California expressed support for the Amendment for giving a constitutional basis for birthright citizenship to all children born in the United States to any parentage (including Chinese noncitizen residents who do not intend to reside permanently in the United States), even though he (and others) thought it had already been guaranteed by the Act,[18] whereas Cowan opposed the Amendment (and Act), arguing that it would have the undesirable outcome of extending citizenship to the children of Chinese and Gypsy immigrants.[19]
Most of the debate on this section of the Amendment centered on whether the wording in the Civil Rights Act or Howard's proposal more effectively excluded Indians on reservations and in U.S. territories from citizenship. Doolittle asserted, and Senators Reverdy Johnson of Maryland and Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana concurred, that all Indians were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the phrase "Indians not taxed" would be preferable,[20] but Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the U.S. government did not have full jurisdiction over Indian tribes, which governed themselves and made treaties with the United States.[21][22] Moreover, they objected to the phrase "Indians not taxed" on the basis that it could be construed as making citizenship dependent on wealth and also that it would allow states to manipulate who is a citizen in their state through tax policy.[23]
Birthright citizenship
Main article: Birthright citizenship in the United States
The provisions in Section 1 have been interpreted to the effect that children born on United States soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or "right of the territory"—does not exist in most of Europe, Asia or the Middle East, although it is part of English common law[24] and is common in the Americas.
Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins[25] and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[3] Elk v. Wilkins established that Indian tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisdiction of the United States. Children born to these Indian tribes therefore did not automatically receive citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment if they voluntarily left their tribe.[26] Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier act of Congress, and all non-citizen Indians were subsequently made citizens by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States[3] and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States.
A 2010 Congressional Research Service report, however, observed that, though it could be argued that Congress has no power to define "subject to the jurisdiction" and the terms of citizenship in a manner contrary to the Supreme Court's understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment as expressed in Wong Kim Ark and Elk, since Congress does have broad power to pass necessary and proper legislation to regulate immigration and naturalization under the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cls. 4 & 18 of the constitution Congress arguably has the power to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for the purpose of regulating immigration.[27]

JimMe

When you say "... Illegal entry complicates the whole situation even further and will undoubtedly require a Supreme court decision and possible 14th amendment revision for clarity..." you are lending your own interpretation into the discussion of US Born Citizenship...

In the Constitution and 14th Amendment, the Congresses and Presidents and Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, have always acknowledged anyone born in the USA and subject to USA Jurisdiction were born USA Citizens... And the people born in the USA and not subject to USA Jurisdiction were children of Foreign Ambassadors or Foreign Government Officials as well as Native Americans born not subject to Full USA Jurisdiction...

There are even case histories supporting the fact that a person born in the USA, whose parents were in the USA whether here Legally or Illegally but were not Citizens of the USA, the child was born a USA Citizen...

pafret Loc: Northeast

Thje Supreme Court Justices have gone both ways, Dred Scott (later overturned) Win Arc et. al. but in neither of these cases were the parents here illegally. What case histories i.e. Supremne Court decisions support your statement. Policy and practice do not determine constitutionality.

JimMe

There haven't been any Supreme Court decisions to support my statement... The Supreme Court not yet hearing cases with Illegally entered parents shows they view the lower Federal Court decisions were substantial enough and didn't merit their hearing the case arguments...

Policy and Practice are determined valid in Courts until a case is opened challenging the Constitutionality of the Policy or Practice... Only then is the Constitutionality of a Policy or Practice determined...