Posted on 08/21/2024 11:05:17 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Aug. 16, 2024) — On or about August 4, 2024, Zach DeGregorio, host of the program, “Wolves and Finance,” uploaded a video to his YouTube channel titled, “Who is Kamala Harris?” which, among other things, questioned whether Harris is a “natural born Citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for the president and commander-in-chief.
Harris became the presumptive 2024 Democrat presidential nominee almost immediately after Joe Biden on July 21 withdrew from the race and endorsed her. To that point, according to NBC News, Harris was the least popular person to hold the office since its polling began. On Wednesday, YouTube informed DeGregorio it removed his video on the grounds it allegedly distributed “misinformation” for questioning Harris’s eligibility. YouTube additionally placed a “warning” on his channel, DeGregorio told us in an email Wednesday, and informed him that another violation over the next 90 days would generate a “strike.” ... . . .
“I was taken completely by surprise,” DeGregorio, an accountant by trade and rising political commentator, told us. “This is a legitimate legal question that people should be allowed to discuss.” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
I have battled & battled over the NBC provision ever since Obama.
SHE IS NOT ELIGIBLE.
NEITHER IS NIKKI HALEY
I ALSO SUSPECT VIVEK IS NOT because he never came forward to prove otherwise.
Youtube is the enemy. Of course they won't let anything on their platform that damages Democrats.
Anytime the left panics and calls something “misinformation,” you can be certain you’re near the target.
imo, obama aka barry soetero was a foreign enemy usurper who is still in control of the government.
Is there any doubt about that?
This is the old “jus soli” vs “jus sanguinis” argument.
In the US, Congress has the enumerated exclusive power over naturalization. That includes who needs naturalization, who does not, who is ineligible for naturalization, and who by the conditions of their birth, are naturally born citizens. One of the very first acts of Congress was the Naturalization Act of 1790.
In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in favor of Wong Kim Ark, a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, that he was a U.S. citizen by birth.
That is the current state of the law. That makes Harris a citizen a birth (natural born citizen). Disagree or dislike, but that is the current law. If you don’t like that, change Congress so that the SCOTUS ruling in the Ark case gets overturned.
Yet conservatives just keep on going there and supporting them. When we should be boycotting them in mass.
Read the full article. It’s not simply where she was born. The entire “eligibility” term ‘natural born Citizen’ of the United States and the debate on the true original intent meaning, understanding, and purpose of it, and why Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen’ of the United States, is addressed therein; and also why is any discussion of it being censored by Google and Google owned YouTube. Again, read the entire article.
The censorship tells you that they know it is true.
YouTube=Google=Alphabet=DeepState..........................
You wanna win?
Forget this stupid birther crap, you sound retarded
were her parents citizens?
From what I have heard that answer is no. that maker sher an anchor baby. Not NBC
You need to remember some basic logic and set and subset theory; and also grammatical analysis. Adjectives mean something. The terms ‘natural born Citizen” and ‘Citizen at Birth” are not logically and grammatically identical terms or identical in meaning. Again the additional adjective “natural” means something special in legal and constitutional terms. The 14th Amendment and the WKA (1898) SCOTUS decision only made WKA a basic citizen by man-made acts and only an Article I “Citizen” of the United States. They did not make the person an Article II “natural born Citizen” at birth, a person born with sole allegiance to the USA at birth by being born in the USA to parents who were both U.S. Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens) at the time their child was born.
The adjective “natural” refers to created by the laws of nature not the laws of man such as the 14th Amendment of any act of Congress of SCOTUS ruling in 1898 on basic birthright citizenship. Again, adjectives mean something. Especially in interpreting the U.S. Constitution and presidential eligibility. See this report for more details on logic and grammar when comparing terms: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2024/08/08/citizen-at-birth-term-vs-natural-born-citizen-term-grammatical-and-logical-analysis/ Also see this Euler Diagram logic showing truth and fallacy of an argument analysis which graphically shows that those two terms are not identically equal: http://www.kerchner.com/documents/pol/385966818-Kamala-Harris-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-USA-to-Constitutional-Standards.pdf
The current law, and also the law in effect at Harris’ birth, is USC 8 S3c. 1401.
Long ago, Pat Buchanan suggested that anchor babies are not natural born citizens. He said the issue has never been tested in the Supreme Court. He wanted Republicans to bring the issue to the court.
I was hoping Pat would win in 1992, when his "pitchfork brigades" challenged "King George." But alas, it was not to be.
Note that "naturally" born was used by the poster, not natural born.
Give no wriggle room with deception.
That's how it's long been treated.
Treated such by whom?
By our government. They are regarded as citizens and so they cannot be deported.
That's why they're called "anchor" babies. Because they "anchor" their whole family of illegals in the U.S.
Cross the border, give birth to baby, and you and your entire family are now anchored in the U.S.
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.