by Sharon Rondeau

(Aug. 13, 2020) — Early Wednesday morning, CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret) informed The Post & Email that a comment he posted on his Facebook page was labeled as containing “false information,” with Facebook citing “fact-checker” Politifact as its source.

As do many others, Kerchner contends that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), selected to run as Joe Biden’s vice-presidential candidate, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II of the U.S. Constitution for the presidency and by the 12th Amendment for anyone contemplating serving as vice president.

Harris was born in Oakland, CA in 1964 to an Indian-citizen mother and Jamaican-citizen father, neither of whom had lived in the U.S. for sufficient time to apply for citizenship.  Some argue that by the circumstances of her birth, Harris is an “anchor baby,” while others say she is a 14th-Amendment “citizen” but not one who can be considered “natural born,” with undivided allegiance to the United States.

After initially attending local schools, Harris’s mother relocated her two daughters to Montreal, Quebec to continue her work in cancer research, and Harris attended schools there through high-school graduation.

By following the link provided in Facebook’s notice placed on Kerchner’s post, one reaches Facebook’s statement on “how Facebook [is] addressing false news through third-party fact-checkers”.

“We’re committed to fighting the spread of false news on Facebook,” the policy reads. “We use both technology and human review to remove fake accounts, promote news literacy and disrupt the financial incentives of spammers. In certain countries, we also work with third-party fact-checkers who are certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network to help identify and review false news.”

One source Facebook provided for its “fact-checking” of Kerchner’s post is USA Today, whose August 11/12 article on the subject is titled, “Fact check: Kamala Harris is a natural-born U.S. citizen and eligible to serve as president.”

The article cites another Facebook post which is no longer available as inaccurate.  “The post has been shared almost 2,000 times since Aug. 2. USA TODAY reached out to Drew Sciuridae, who made the post, for comment,” the paper reported.  Whether or not Sciuridae responded is not divulged.

The article states that Harris is both a “citizen” and “natural born Citizen,” a differentiation made in the U.S. Constitution in the requirements between those serving in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate and the presidency.  While naturalization citizens were deemed eligible for the former under certain conditions, Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution requires the president and commander-in-chief to be a “natural born Citizen,” to have resided in the country 14 years or more, and to be at least 35 years of age, exceeding the respective age requirements of senators and representatives set forth in Article I.

The USA Today column fails to cite any of the constitutional scholars who contend that the citizenship of a presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s parents is equally, if not more, important as the candidate’s place of birth in determining whether or not he or she is “natural born.”  Moreover, the writer did not invoke the fact that in 2015 and 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) claimed to possess “natural born” citizenship, with the support of two former solicitors general, even though he was indisputably born in Canada.

The second source to which Facebook linked responsive to Kerchner’s post is “leadstories,” which asserts, in regard to “natural born Citizen”:

Being born in the United States automatically makes you a natural-born citizen of the United States. This is called “birthright citizenship,” and is guaranteed by the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution:

The article then quotes from the 14th Amendment, which refers to “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.”  It makes no mention of the statement by Rep. John Bingham, considered the author of the amendment, that, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.

Over the years, Facebook has notably changed its function from that of a social-media platform with legal protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) to a publisher which curates, evaluates and removes content based on its own criteria. However, Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified to a House committee that Facebook is “a technology company because the primary thing that we do is have engineers who write code and build product and services for other people.”

On May 28, President Trump issued an executive order with the purpose of “preventing online censorship” which begins:

Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

The order directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review reports of online censorship and “consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.”  In turn, the Justice Department was directed to “establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”

“Trump issued an executive order in May against social media companies in an attempt to regulate platforms where he has been criticized, just days after Twitter took the rare step of fact-checking one of his tweets about mail-in voting,” Reuters reported Wednesday. “Trump threatened to scrap or weaken a law known as Section 230, which protects internet companies from litigation over content posted by users.”

CDT, a technology company “funded by Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Twitter Inc.,” according to the same article, filed suit in June against the executive order.

On Wednesday, the Justice Department filed a motion with the court for a dismissal of the case on the grounds that “The EO challenged here imposes no obligations on any private party,” Reuters wrote.  Conversely, CDT’s counsel commented, “Instead of actually trying to address the merits of the issues, and to engage in litigation that will show the severe constitutional deformities of the executive order, it is resorting to legal maneuvering,”

On August 4, after Twitter, Facebook and YouTube removed a video of “America’s Frontline Doctors” promoting hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment for coronavirus and criticizing certain aspects of the U.S. response to the pandemic, Vice President Mike Pence told Breitbart’s Alex Marlow, “We’re going to do our very best every day between now and election day and for four more years after that to make sure that we preserve the freedom of speech and freedom of the press on the Internet.”

Following a report released last year authored by former Republican U.S. Senator John Kyl and the law firm Covington & Burling, Facebook said it would take steps to combat the perception of left-leaning bias.  Such measures included “the creation of an oversight board for content decisions, the hiring of staffers to work with right-of-center organizations and leaders, and the introduction of an appeals process for content removed for violating the company’s community standards,” The Washington Post reported last August 20.






Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Wikileaks’ Julian Assange was noted by “authorities” to be a publisher, yet he never once published anything of his own! Rules and constitutional edicts are made up by the left as they go along. Yet, our universities no longer teach the Constitution to prospective lawyers and haven’t done so in decades. Yes, it IS a global conspiracy. They create something wrong with the constitution to give themselves a reason to change it.

  2. SCRIBD.com, another online document and presentations platform controlled by the political left, is now censoring the posting of documents and presentations too, by removing them from public viewing in a shadow banning manner. The uploader can still see the document in their account, and it looks perfectly normal, but no one else can. And they do this without telling the account holder. The uploader only learns of the problem when others tell them a day or so after the document was uploaded and working fine, that the link to the document results in a message “This document has been removed”. And yet the account holder can view it perfectly with no warning message or tag saying it has been removed from public view. I’m in the midst right now of a protest with them regarding their removal of one I uploaded regarding the fact that Kamala Harris was a Jamaican Citizen at Birth via her Jamaican father per the Jamaican Constitution. We constitutional conservatives are living in the novel 1984 in real time. CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

  3. Facebook might be aware that the vast majority of attorneys do not agree that the two parent citizen theory has any merit or that the writings of de Vattel were relevant to the definition of natural born as used in the US Constitution They might also be aware that every single case filed against Barack Obama based on this nonsense went down in flames including those filed by Mr. Kerchner.

      1. Facebook is both a platform and a publisher.

        Regardless, it is allowed to create its own rules and not publish content that violates it’s rules.

        1. So…..because Facebook is both fact and fiction, why would you want to rely on it for the truth – other than seeing a person’s most recent photograph..

        2. I am wondering about the ramifications of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Does it allow for an online site to be both a “platform” for public comment and a “publisher” who is responsible for the accuracy of the content posted?

        3. An online site is a platform when it publishes the contents of others. An online site is a publisher when it publishes its own content.

          So an online site is responsible for the accuracy of its own content, but cannot be held liable for the accuracy of others’ content.

  4. The so-called Fact checkers rely on the leftist misreadings, misrepresentations and lies propagated by fake media, and so-called experts and politicians that support a specific agenda and narrative. There is no interest in facts or the truth.

  5. Back during the 2004 election, AOL canceled my then 13 year membership for posting the truth about John F. Kerry’s service in Vietnam and his subsequent anti-war activities.

  6. I got banned from facebook for telling the truth about abortion and homosexuality. they don’t “fact check”, they just censor the truth told by conservatives. satan owns facebook, twitter, instagram, the lamestream fake news and the devildemocommiecrat party.