Kamala Harris Will Never be President

It appears now that the Progressive/socialists that have taken over the Democrat party have been looking for the new shining star for the next Presidential election. Just a few weeks ago they rebranded themselves as “the Better Deal”. They speak well of jobs and infrastructure, and better wages for workers. Does anyone believe that anything has changed? Remember Obamas “fundamental transformation” of our country and how eight years of Obama did transform this country. Lower wages, lower respect from the world, and more division in the country because of the identity politics forced on the American people.

The progressive/socialists have a hard decision to make. They know that the alternatives that they have for the next Presidential election are weak. The socialist Bernie Sanders, if he doesn’t go to jail with his wife, is no answer. By the time of the next election, his socialist policies will have been shown to be a farce. Elizabeth Warren is a corporate shill who hides behind the lies she used to get ahead and has no real meaningful agenda other than to trash Republicans.

A new shining star that has emerged in some areas is Kamala Harris. She is already making the first moves speaking to national Democrats and think tanks in Washington D.C. which the national media will lap up. They will cover Harris with such adoration and form alliances to further push hew ambitions upon the American people. As a new Senator, her focus should be on the people of California and not the national stage. Being called a compelling candidate by the likes of Bob Shrum, even members in the California Democratic politicians have been very quick to jump on the Harris bandwagon. Most supporters in California showed that many feel that Harris is pushing too hard to run for President.

Harris received an endorsement from Maxine Waters, the chief proponent in the impeachment push of President Trump. Maxine Waters runs a “pay for Play” where money is funneled to Waters in order to get her endorsement on her mailers, which she pays her daughter to accomplish for $650,000.

Kamala Harris had paid tens of thousands of dollars to be listed on the Waters fliers of endorsements. Latest counts have shown the somewhere around $65,000 has been paid by Harris to the Waters campaign funds according to the Federal Election Commission.

As Attorney General of California, Harris faced a lawsuit by Prime Healthcare, a national healthcare company in the purchase of a failing healthcare company, The Daughters of Charity Health System. The SEIU which donated to the Harris campaign for Attorney general is seeking to organize the workers at DCHS which would have been thwarted by the purchase of the company by Prime Healthcare. Harris attempted to expand the five year level of services required to purchase the company to ten years making the purchase “financially unviable”. This is the first and only time in the history of the California Attorney General office that these requirements have been forced upon any company.

Kamala Harris, declaring herself a feminist, ignored two pro-democracy, pro-freedom Muslim women at a recent Senate hearing called by Senator Ron Johnson about Islamic ideology. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani were ignored by the women on the Panel North Dakota Democrat Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan, Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, and yes, California Democrat Kamala Harris. You would think misogyny and sexism in the Middle East where women fact constant and vicious abuse would be on the top of the list for these feminists. But Harris, along with the others are more concerned with offending Muslims. There were no questions, and no testimony allowed by these two brave women about the ideology of political Islam. Our American feminists are more concerned about abortion, the supposed gender pay gap and discrimination, but not one word about the terror that women in the Islamic world face every day.

Kamala Harris abused her office as Attorney General to assist Planned Parenthood in a witch hunt against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress. Last week a California court dropped 14 of 15 charges as legally insufficient. Even the Los Angeles Times stated that “Never in the history of California has anyone been charged with a crime for an undercover investigation”. Harris being an ardent abortion supporter and Planned Parenthood supporting her campaign, is it really any wonder why this case was brought? It appears that Harris is unconcerned about the unborn being aborted, chopped up and sold for profit.

Kamala Harris is now making a name for herself and becoming a “shining star” for the progressive socialists by being rude and not allowing witnesses to answer at Senate hearings. Acting like the worst mother-in-law you could ever have, she rants on and on as the witness is trying to answer, and then claims victimhood when requested to let the witness answer the question. In the questioning of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions during a Senate Hearing in June she constantly and continually asked questions without allowing the witnesses to answer. This is just another way to increase her visibility as her and her fellow feminists blame the chairman of the committee as a mean man intent to suppressing the voice of women.

The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.

The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.

Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.

By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?

The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.

Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.

Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.

Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.

This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.

After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.

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.