Posted on 02/23/2019 6:05:26 AM PST by Rummyfan
Horizonal Harris, Down-Town Willy Brown’s...*itch.
Kamela’s California DNA/ID Rape kit scandal!
“Kamala protected a lot rapists while serving as California’s AG!”
“Unprocessed DNA/ID rape kits in California while Kamala was the state AG!”
If she had done her job as our state AG, there would not be hundreds if not thousands of DNA/ID rape Kits not processed.
Maybe some females in California and the nation can bring this scandal forward after Kamala conveniently forgot about them.
CA ‘DNA/ID’ backlog under fire Capitol Weekly | Capitol Weekly ...
capitol weekly.net/rape-kit-backlog-under-fire/
Apr 11, 2018 - Thousands of California women who said they were raped gave ... But many of the DNA/ID rape kits were not examined in a timely way, caught in a ...
No one knows how many untested DNA/ID rape kits there are in California ...
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-rape-kits-legislation-20170525-story.html
May 26, 2017 - Assembly Bill 41 would require law enforcement agencies to report to the state how many sexual assault DNA/ID kits they collected and have examined ...
The unconscionable backlog of unprocessed rape kits in California ...
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-rape-kits-20180521-story.html
May 21, 2018 - The DNA/ID rape kit backlog is, unfortunately, not a new problem, though ... that the procedure will further the investigation, not just add to a collection of ...
Destroyed: How the trashing of DNA/ID rape kits failed victims and jeopardizes ...
www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/11/investigates/police-destroyed-rapekits/index.html
Nov 29, 2018 - Where police did not redact that information, CNN did, including the full names of ... A CNN investigation into the destruction of DNA/ID rape kits in dozens of agencies ..... of Prosecuting Attorneys and a career California prosecutor.
‘Disturbing’ DNA/ID rape kit investigation prompts action - CNN - CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/health/ DNA/ID rape-kits-destroyed-reaction.../index.html
Dec 5, 2018 - A CNN investigation prompts officials to tell police: Do not destroy rape kits.
For someone who’s taken an oath to uphold, support, and defend the Constitution throughout her professional career, 2020 Democratic presidential contender Sen. Kamala Harris tends to, in the words of constitutionalist and talk host Mark Levin, “treat it like a smorgasbord,” picking the parts she likes and ignoring the parts she doesn’t.
Like not funding to process/id maybe thousands of Rape Kits in California while serving as the state’s highest ranking law enforcement person, the state’s former AG, Kamala!
the dem candidates include a pedophile,
a ponzi schemer,
a granddaughter of slaveowners posing as a black,
and a granddaughter of indian murderers posing as a
“native american”,
who are their standards of ethics.
what happened to the Constitution and Law?
She's slightly brown but not too brown to scare away the slow on the uptake traditional white Democrats.
She hates white people.
She's a shoe-in. And with no wall, caravans and open, blatant voter fraud--she will very likely win. As Slow Joe likes to say, gird your loins.
She is used to the protected political preserve of California, where Democrat politicians are protected from anyone taking pot shots at them with nasty, unfriendly, questions.
Now she has escaped into the wild of national politics. There are a few real hunters roaming the wilderness, and politicians, even Democrat politicians, are not completely protected anymore.
By LST after LST while in Sacramento.
Kamala is this way, and she is waiting for you, GIs!
That is not true...guess we’ll dig this out again:
Here’s some information to shed light on what you stated from another thread where these issues were discussed:
If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Marco Rubio, Chester Arthur, [or Kamala Harris]. The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a “U.S. Citizen” could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a “Vice Chancellor”) made this declaration: “Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.” In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.” This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s.
There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this, finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.
Detractors like to ignore all of information and court cases and instead rely totally on a case Minor v. Happersett - seeming to deliberately misquote the ruling - indeed, the justices specifically stated they were not making a finding of every scenario that constitutes a natural born citizen in their ruling: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ***For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.***” Minor v. Happersett - full text of ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
Those were ditched decades ago when they took up Progressivism as an ethical system.
The only ethics in Progressivism is the lust for power.
Bkmrk
But there’s a caveat. Shes nothing but a pantsuit with big shoulder pads wearing fraud?
Yes, but she was smokin' dope while doing it! How cool is that? Take it to 'em!
The 14th Amendment did not alter the definition of the term Natural Born Citizen which is still defined as “Born in a country to parents who are it’s citizens.”
The 14th A expanded the definition of “Born citizenship” to include those “...born in the country to legally residing parents without regards to their citizenship.
Ponder that while all NBCs are born citizens. not all born citizens are NBCs.
The added adjective “Natural” to “born citizen” is the key to understanding this. If they were the same “NATURAL” would not be needed. The 14th A did not modify Article II or it’s eligibility requirements. It’s sole purpose was to insure that recently freed former slaves were recognized as citizens without the need for “naturalization.”
To assert that the 14th A modified Article II is lubricous. Not even the 9TH Circuit would be that bad!
She listens to all those rap songs even before they were recorded — don’t ja know...
Trying really hard to be labeled African-American.
Maybe she should try a little black face makeup.
She listens to all those rap songs even before they were recorded — don’t ja know...
Trying really hard to be labeled African-American.
Maybe she should try a little black face makeup.
The only threat is Joe Biden. Kamila Harris is amateur hour we already had Obama. Bernie Sanders nobody wants in thier right thinking mind except hipsters
You have no clue.
It certainly looks like that a lot of the time, but it's more complicated.
Progressivism is a political movement that tries to implement a social order based on two things (both of which are false): The "blank-slate" theory of human nature and egalitarianism.
And one of the reasons progressivism marches on and on is that most Americans, and most conservatives, believe to some degree in one or both of these completely false propositions.
People are not blank slates at birth. They have many inborn abilities and weaknesses, and they carry many unchosen attributes and affiliations.
And the idea that in a properly ordered polity that people of all backgrounds and parentage will be "equal" is, of course, absurd.
It's NOT the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that explains the relentless catastrophe now unfolding in Southern Africa - and right here at home.
“Now she has escaped into the wild of national politics. There are a few real hunters roaming the wilderness, and politicians, even Democrat politicians, are not completely protected anymore.”
Wandering out of her safe space and into a free fire zone isn’t for the unprepared. The paper tigers easily fall prey to the real predators.
Harris will be toast long before the convention. It wouldn’t surprise me if her fumbles and tumbles don’t cost her the Senate seat she now holds.
I have to believe there are many AO-C types in LaLa land slobbering to replace her.
“For someone who’s taken an oath to uphold, support, and defend the Constitution throughout her professional career, 2020 Democratic presidential contender Sen. Kamala Harris tends to, in the words of constitutionalist and talk host Mark Levin, “treat it like a smorgasbord,” picking the parts she likes and ignoring the parts she doesn’t.”
I said long ago that races for the congress and for president in this country involve two or more candidates who strive to outdo each other in promising to violate the constitution in ever more imaginative ways and then the winner is sworn into office promising to uphold the same constitution which they promised to violate in the campaign.
It has become absurd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.