"Not every Democrat did what you did, Kamala."
"Dam right. I put my vagina in the service of my country."
Posted on 01/10/2019 5:40:04 AM PST by C19fan
Sen. Kamala Harris has decided to run for president in 2020 and will announce her candidacy on or around Martin Luther King Jr. Day, probably at a campaign rally in Oakland, sources close to the freshman senator from California tell KCBS Radio.
Harris, 54, has been making the rounds of television talk shows and appearing at several events this week as part of a brief tour to promote her new book, "The Truths We Hold: An American Journey."
At every stop, when asked about running for president, Harris has answered with some variation of "I'm not ready yet" to announce her decision, citing family considerations. But several sources knowledgeable about her plans say she is ready, and has in fact decided to run, with the enthusiastic blessing of her husband and two stepchildren.
(Excerpt) Read more at kcbsradio.radio.com ...
She is going to need a whole lot more condoms than she is used to.
This one may be better. It gets into more detail:
https://www.thepostemail.com/2018/08/19/is-kamala-harris-eligible-to-be-president/
Unfortunately, the American people appear to have very little or no say in the matter. The courts appear to think they lack standing and their elected representatives will once again announce, "If she/he says he was born in the U.S. that is good enough for me."; indeed, many reps will only offer blank stares.
What we can expect is that when the dem vaudeville show (aka "presidential primary") is concluded, every single D voter, unlike their R counterparts, will coalesce behind the dem candidate.
I guess, after Obutthole, the “natural born citizen” requirement has been rendered moot.
Most here would say, "That is a good looking hill."
She’s got an up-hill battle. Difficult to campaign when you spend all day on your back...or on all fours.
CAPS ARE DELIBERATE:
KAMALA HARRIS IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS OR ANY POSITION THAT CAN SUCCEED POTUS,
EVEN AS FAR DOWN THE LIST AS SEC OF STATE.
BOTH OF HER PARENTS ARE FOREIGN BORN-—INDIA & JAMAICA.
SHE WAS BORN HERE, BUT NEITHER OF HER PARENTS WERE USA CITIZENS WHEN SHE WAS BORN. THEY DIDN’T GET THEIR USA CITIZENSHIP UNTIL 5-6 YEARS LATER.
HARRIS IS NATIVE BORN.
SHE IS NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. i REPEAT NOT !!!!!!
SHE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT. ...OR AS ABOVE.
OBAMA SNOOKERED US ONCE. HOWARD DEAN & PELOSI WERE ACCOMPLICES IN THAT FRAUD/TRAVESTY.
WE DO NOT NEED AN ENCORE.
STOP THIS INSANITY BEFORE IT CONTINUES.
"Not every Democrat did what you did, Kamala."
"Dam right. I put my vagina in the service of my country."
Col Strong Vincent:
You can't withdraw under any condition. If you go, this line will be flanked. If you go, the enemy will sweep up over the hillside and take this entire army from the rear. You must defend this place to the last.
Colonel Chamberlain:
Yes, sir.
Col Strong Vincent:
Now we'll see how professors real estate tycoons fight.
She’s not at all ineligible.
Birthers invented a fictitious standard of eligibility that defined Natural Born Citizen to require a candidate’s parents to be citizens under the delusion that this would nullify Obama’s presidency. It is a standard found nowhere in the Constitution or in any court decision. It’s pure nonsense.
Kamala Harris will face no serious challenge to her eligibility should she decide to run.
Bkmrk
Why is she ineligible? I am not following?
She’s not at all ineligible.
Birthers invented a fictitious standard of eligibility that defined Natural Born Citizen to require a candidate’s parents to be citizens under the delusion that this would nullify Obama’s presidency. It is a standard found nowhere in the Constitution or in any court decision. It’s pure nonsense.
Kamala Harris will face no serious challenge to her eligibility should she decide to run.
Here we go again...This slut is no more eligible than the man in the moon....
Yes, now I recognize the photo. I’ve seen that movie several times. Probably the best slap-stick comedy of all time. The final scene with Ethyl Merman is worth the price of admission alone.
State your case...why?
“These commies must never ever take the Whitehouse or God forbid the Whitehouse and both houses. “
These commies must never ever take the Whitehouse or God forbid the Whitehouse and both houses....again.
Don’t expect my vote.
In my opinion, it's entirely possible for her to win the nomination--her nastiness will just be a plus for her with Democrat voters. The media will do their best to suppress any mention of her start in politics coming from being Willie Brown's mistress.
With 1.4 million felons now eligible to vote in Florida, that state will be harder for Trump to win in 2020, and the Rats will work harder in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 2020 than Hillary did in 2016.
I'm still hopeful that Trump will be able to beat anyone the Democrats nominate but it isn't a sure thing.
She’s not a natural born citizen. Dad was Jamaican citizen ( legally present in USA but not yet eligible for, abs this did not have USA citizenship when she was born). Mom a citizen of India ( and similarly not yet eligible for, and did not have USA citizenship when she was born). She can vote and serve in most public offices, but not serve as president or VP.
Why aren’t the republicans standing up on this issue so we can get a USSC case?
Re: What to Expect from a Kamala Harris Presidency(pronounced comma-lah)
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST
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.
A law not enforced becomes no law at all.
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.