Posted on 12/31/2018 10:12:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Well, the contest is over, folks. The New York Times has made its selection for president for 2020, and all those Democrats out there can pack it up. Sorry, Beto. Too bad, Joe. Bye-bye, Bernie.
The winner is...Kamala Harris!
That's how goofy things have become, what with the paper of record tipping its choice even before any of the debates is out or any of the Democratic candidates (you know it's going to be a Democrat they endorse) has made his case to voters. The buildup is on.
Blogger Ann Althouse (hat tip: Instapundit) has gotten a load of the Times' latest Kamala-love headline (which I noticed, too, so I bet it's plenty of people who've noticed), showing Harris as the first person in the Times' lineup of names of Democrats running for president, in some fluff piece on how, well, they're running. Althouse spotted another detail: that they placed Harris's op-ed calling for free health care right there in the top-right corner, which is prime real estate for a newspaper, as it is likely to be seen by readers, and something they rarely do for an op-ed.
There plenty of evidence that's whom they are gunning for. Harris has been engulfed in scandals, from misappropriation of LAPD guards to a defense of false prosecutorial testimony to sex harassment from her aides that she claims to know nothing about to deceptive videos. I went to check on whether the Times gave any coverage to her last scrap with unethical behavior: her claim that she knew nothing about her top aide's involvement with sex harassment, which led to a $400,000 payout to a persecuted junior aide. Guess what: the Times wrote nothing. Do a search of "Larry Wallace" and "Kamala Harris," and nothing comes up. Do that same search on Google, and there's an explosion of stories, all derived from the Sacramento Bee's scoop. Funny how that happens.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
What difference, at this point, does it make?
They’d just blame it on a video on Youtube,
Would you want to be Kamala Harris if Hillary thought you were the only thing standing between her and the Dem nomination?
But she won't do as well in the East, since so many of her rivals for the nomination come from northeastern states. And she won't do well in the Midwest. Not a good fit with the region.
She'll also have problems in the South. She's Black, and that will help there. But she's not the kind of Black woman that Black women like (grew up in Canada, Asian mother, White husband, no kids, no church, hoity-toity, stuck-up, bougie manner).
I doubt Harris will win, but if a white guy gets the nomination, she's the obvious choice for VP. The other contenders are mostly from the Northeast and the Democrats aren't going to run a ticket of people from the same corner of the country. As a more or less Black woman, Harris checks the boxes.
Democrats might run a White woman from the Midwest for vice president - a sort of Tim Kaine in a skirt - but more African-Americans would stay home. They might come out to vote with Harris as VP, even if they don't love her.
I don't think so. That might mean questioning Obama's qualifications. And there will probably be other candidates later with parents who weren't US citizens when the candidate was born.
It would be fun if somebody in the debates started talking about her growing up in Canada. Maybe that's why Mark Cuban would run - to say stuff like that, stuff that nobody else would say.
well no one alive is an exaggeration. I believe Obama and Harris are clear. Foreign parents. So I can do that easy. I am not a scholar and i didn’t write the article I posted, I cited the poster.
If the parents are both US naturalized or otherwise then I would think we have a NBC no matter what Iran claims or anyone else. The “free from other countries” is problematic, but we have to look at the situation. That’s what the courts have to man up.
The first time she ever appears in a Nexis.com search of California news is March 22, 1994, when she was Assembly Speaker Willie Brown’s date at his 60th birthday party.
^^^^^ Yikes! Konfused Kamala had old man Willie clambering on top of her (or whatever) in her Twenties when she was still nice and semi-exotic looking..... Sad and pathetic.
nope not if the court says they can’t. This is the reasons e need the USSC to rule. They could address those example sin questions or in the opinions. It would be nonsensical to surrender that type of control to a foreign country.
It isn’t all or nothing. The courts can address situations
PS once again I didn’t cite anything. I posted another posters comments.
I don’t mean they tell Iran what to do, they would say Iran;s policy doesn’t apply to our definition of NBC because they are doing a generalized version of citizenship and we don’t recognize blanket inclusion.
Now that’s it for me. Best wishes. You might enter into a dialogue with the guy who put the info together.
“Foreign citizenship laws don’t affect our laws - just because another country grants a US citizen citizenship, doesn’t mean that US citizen is necessarily not a natural-born citizen”.
Just as ours do not negate theirs...See MY post #57. The framers of the constitution did not want to take a chance on a POTUS with potential divided loyalties for ANY reason...Remember, The NBC clause has only ONE constitutional applicability, that is to be eligible to assume the office of POTUS. Nothing else.
One is not a lesser citizen in any other sense, all other privileges, rights, and obligations are the same for any other class of citizen, whether they be statutory (Puerto Ricans) 14th amendment, (Womg Kim Ark, Kamala Harris,) or native born (A tribal American Indian that was made a US citizen by act of Congress in 1924.)
This provision has only applied to 45 US citizens in the nation’s history anyway. Grover Cleveland was not an NBC either, due to his father, but no one challenged his status legally, so he got away with it. In Obama’s case, the SCOTUS just punted and kicked the can down the road.
Part of the international acceptance of the nature of citizenship is the generally accepted principle among nations that the children of citizens born abroad are also citizens of that nation. OUR laws say that a child born to a US citizen, anywhere in the world, is a US citizen also. BUT THERE MUST BE ONE US CITIZEN PARENT. It is COMMON for most nations to accept this reality. It is unheard of, by means other than conquest, for a nation to pass a law declaring citizens in another country their citizens also and the parent has no citizenship ties to the nation, simply by declaring the whole or part of a sovereign nation’s citizenry their own citizens by fiat.
Such a move would undoubtedly trigger the end of diplomatic relations with that nation, and possibly even war.
One of the conditions of naturalizing as an American is renouncing previous citizenship.
It was Chester A. Arthur that was questionable, but he destroyed most of the evidence so it is still debatable.
Lying on your naturalization should invalidate it.
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.