ADMIN

Not just no BUT HELL NO - kill yourself guy blank | Meme Generator

A left-wing activist with ties to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) nominated by President Joe Biden to be a federal judge has argued photo ID and proof of citizenship constitute “voter suppression.”

Nancy Gbana Abudu, the deputy legal director at SPLC, was picked by Biden in December to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The 11th Circuit covers parts of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The vacancy came about upon the retirement of Judge Beverly B. Martin — a President Barack Obama appointee.

Abudu worked for the ACLU from 2005 to 2019 and was an 11th Circuit staff attorney from 2002 to 2004. Along with U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs, she was part of Biden’s twelfth round of judicial nominees, according to a White House memo.

Biden put forth 75 judges in 2021. The memo states that his nominees “reflect the diversity” Biden “promise[d]” in courts and that Abudu “would be the first African-American woman judge ever to sit on the Eleventh Circuit.” 

‘Voter Suppression’ Remarks

In a 2011 interview dug up by The Daily Wire, Abudu asserted that “95 percent” of her work with the ACLU at the time involved “voting rights.” She notably said “photo ID” and “proof of citizenship,” two long-established requirements to vote, are indicative of “voter suppression:”

 

Obviously, we do a lot when it comes to voter suppression, which includes five priority areas: photo ID, proof of citizenship, restrictions we see when it comes to registration … early voting as well as absentee voting and the restrictions we see when it comes to criminal convictions. We also do a lot with student voting.

Abudu said her “biggest concern” as an ACLU attorney “regarding voter suppression” was states “passing laws requiring voters to have photo IDs.” She slammed South Carolina for not permitting students to show campus IDs to vote, calling it “restrictive.”

The Biden nominee has continued to argue that various voting requirements are discriminatory. In August, Abudu called on the Senate to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — H.R. 4 — in order “to protect the future of American democracy.”

read more:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-judicial-nominee-said-proof-of-citizenship-is-voter-suppression

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • "Where is the installed president getting these radical nominees?"

    The CCP via Obama and the Democrat party.

    Joes joke book cannot list them. It is 60 years old.

  • <in order “to protect the future of American democracy.”> Ah, that would be like the Democratic Republic of (Red) China, would it then, eh, Nancy??  With no basic rights for the citizenry but what the almighty Stase deigns to give them???...

    I appear to have news for you, Nancy Abudu.  When things are set to rights in this country - and they will be - not only will there be no judgeship for you - with the demise of the illegal Biden administration, and all of its fraudulent appointments - but the same will happen regarding the illegal administrations of BHO, who was in that office ineligibly; and all of the legislation that he signed into law, and all of the E.O.'s that he issued, and all of the appointments that he made - including to the SCOTUS, and inferior courts - will go with him.  Into the trash bin.  For it to be as though he had never occupied that office.  For, he was never there legally.  And thereby will we return to THE RULE OF LAW in this country - its Constitution.

    (Look it up: the definition of a 'natural born' citizen, as defined in the definitive tome of the day of the constitutional Framers, E. de Vattel's ''The Law of Nations'.  Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212.)        

    • Neither 0blabla nor Heels Up Harris pass the 'natural born' citizen eligibility test of the Constitution as the FRAMERS WROTE IT.

    • Although I support both Cruz and Rubio let us not ignore the fact that neither of them are constitutionally eligible to serve as POTUS. 

    • I never said, or implied, they were.

       

    • Indeed, Diane.  But whose candidacy in 2016 for that office is undoubtedly why the Repub Party didn't object to the runs of BHO in 2008 and '12: They wanted to engage in the same end-run around the Constitution for their own candidates on the issue. It's not as if both major politica parties haven't known the truth of the matter: Between them, between 2003 and '08 alone they tried a total of 8 times to get a constitutioinal amendment going through Congress on the general issue of the eligibility requirements for the office of the presidency - all of which had this particular issue as their common denominator - and they failed each time even to get their proposals out fo committee, such was the sensitiviity around this issue.  So, what did they do?  It's obvious what they did.  They colluded.  And when we return to sanity in this country, and throw off this challenge to it - and its rule of law, the U.S. Constitution - by the NWO crowd, we can deal with all of the matters that have been highlighted in and by this nefarious narrative.  Including the very legality of the current major political parties themselves, for having engaged - so far theoretically - in this criminal activity between them, and needing to be taken to court under RICO statutes when more evidience to the fact comes forth.  Which will apparently have to be a military court, with the civilian judicial branch seemingly as corrupt as the rest of the tripartite branches of our government.  In any event: the Truth - of all things - must, and will, out.  We can obviously no longer live under error, and deceit.  It is far too embarrassing to do so, for the 'spiritual beings having a human experience' that we are.  And making a bi of a mess of it, right at the moment.  But, it's all a matter of lesson learning.  Or not.  Our choice.                         

    • An interesting post you presented, Stan. One question I might present? Since the president is the Commander in Chief how would it be constitutionally legal for the military to usurp his authority. As I see it the only way the military could favorably take control and have legal issues presented to a military court would be with the peoples overwhelming support. I have to wonder if that is possible since so many today strongly favor the socialist handouts they might not be willing to surrender. 

      Trump did bring up the eligible status of Obama but that seemed to go nowhere. The argument of eligibility was clouded due the constitutional amendment that was meant to declare freed slaves the birthright of natural born citizenship. That right was falsly exended to mean anyone born on American soil was a natural born citizen thereby confusing the issue of what is meant by 'natural born'. Before then it was accepted that the parents citizenship wouild be the determinent, not upon what nations soil the child was born. 

      Gawd, as the law now stands a child of Stalin or Hitler born on American soil during a family visit would be an American citizen and even run for president of this nation. That absurdity was never imagined in the minds of our founders.

    • Good commment, Diane.  But to clarify: The 14th Amendment itself never conferred, nor talked about, 'natural born' status.  It simpy says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."  And that qualifying phrase is what has made all this business about 'anchor babies' such a fraud.  A baby born to persons just visiting in this country, or to illegal aliens, or to diplomats, is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country.  They are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the home countries of their parents.  It is this sort of deceit going on in this country that is why I say both of the current major political parties are deceitful, in allowing all this to happen, and so need to be brought up on RICO statutes, and we have a reorganiztion of matters in this country.  One might say that it is judicial-branch determinations that have brought about all this chicanery.  But the Congress could have clarified the issue, if it had wanted to.  It has not wanted to.  So, it goes, too.  In the New Order of Things, now to come.  Just not the NOoT of the NWO crowd. They would impose a NOoT by Force.  The One to come is rule by Love.  The Love of the Creator for Its creation.  And the gratitude of us Homo sapiens sapiens for life with meaning.                 

    • Stan, I was of course addressing the 14th amendment. It was intended to convey upon the freed slaves a 'natural born' status to them rather than naturalization, a distinct clarification. It was intended to eliminate the question of children born of slaves who themselves, as slaves, were never considered citizens in the first place. The 14th actually grandfathered all freed slaves into 'Natural Born' status. Even its authors never considered it to be applied to illegals or children born to visitors.

      The 14th erred in even the mention of persons born for that created a confused  application of citizenship to those born on Amerocan soil of non citizens and illegals. It also erred in its ignorance and separation of the two legal terms of citizenship: natural born and citizen.

      You stated the term correctly for 'natural born' was understood by all legal scholors during the time of the creation of this nation to citizen status of parents, not place of birth. Many of the founders and all colonial citizens were born English citizens of course but that, unlike the 14th, was later clarified to determine those previously English citizens to be 'automatically' American citizens with natural born citizen rights, not in need of naturalization.

    • As much as I like your contributions to these Comments threads, Diane, I have to insist that a 'natural born citizen' as understood by the constitutional Framers is a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens" thereof.  (E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations,' Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212.)  It involves both jus soli - of the soil - and jus sanguinis - of the blood.  And you are confusing the issue regarding the 14th Amendment, and the issue of 'natural born' versus simply 'born'.  A person can be a 'born' citizen but not a 'natural born' citizen.  A relevant point: Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to the C'l Convention, made a proposal that the president need only be, quote, "born a Citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the stricter category of citizen, i.e, of needing to be 'natural born,' of both the soil and the blood.  (The whole POINT of the requirement was to make sure that the occupant of that particular federal office, who would as well, then, become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, had NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES.  Had SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S.  And that eligibility requirement for that office - and as added for the office of the VP later by amendment; logicaly, since that person might accede to the higher office - STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.)  Nobody can have 'natural born' citizenship conferred on them.  And they can be native born, but not natural born. (Or naturalized.)  And an English citizen at the time of the proposed Constitution was allowed for right in the document.  Art. II, Sect. 1: " No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."   The bottom line: Clever people over the years have attempted to obfuscate this matter, as to the definition of a 'natural born' citizen, and a couple of Supreme Court decisions have muddied the waters a bit.  But the original intent holds.  And that means that neither BHO nor K Harris were eligible for their positions.  And so their 'reigns' must be stricken from the record; and the reason clearly given.  And since the whole Biden administration was illegally sworn into office, from the stolen Nov. 2020 election - a coup d' etat in this country - it must go in total.  Once proven, of course.  But I am fairly certain that the U.S. Mil Intel has that evidence.  And is just waiting for the right moment to move that piece on the political chess board game going on. 

      When will that be?  I wish I knew.  I am getting as frustrated as many others, for this Drama to be over.  So that we can get to The Real Thing.  Another subject.  But totaly relevant. Becuse in it all, we are talking about the importance, and application, of Truth.  Without which, the people perish.       

This reply was deleted.