Reports: Kamala Harris, Questionable Natural-Born Citizen, to Run for President

IS A BIRTH IN THE U.S. ENOUGH?

The Post & Email

by Sharon Rondeau

(Jan. 10, 2019) — Fox News and other sources reported early Thursday morning that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) plans to announce that she will run for president in 2020.

Harris has failed to answer questions about her parents’ citizenship at the time of her birth in 1964 in Oakland, CA.  Her Wikipedia page says that her mother immigrated from India in 1960 and her father from Jamaica a year later.  If accurate, neither could have resided in the United States for the requisite five years to apply for U.S. citizenship prior to Kamala’s birth.

Harris’s Wikipedia biography additionally states that she grew up in Canada from age 7 through high-school graduation, something she has not publicized on her Senate website.

Harris’s Senate office has not responded to queries from a constituent, Gary Wilmott, who first contacted her in December 2017 regarding her rumored plans to seek the presidency and whether or not her parents ever became U.S. citizens and if so, when.

The Post & Email’s follow-up article dated August 19, 2018 article titled, “Is Kamala Harris Eligible to be President?” continues to go viral on the web.

The Post & Email was unable to reach Harris’s office by phone on at least two occasions and received no response to an email last month asking similar questions about her constitutional eligibility for the Oval Office.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born Citizen,” which appears to denote a higher level of allegiance than simply “a Citizen of the United States,” the requirement stated in Article I for U.S. representatives and senators as well as respective residency requirements.

The president must also be 35 years old or older and have resided in the United States for at least 14 years.

In 2007, Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility began to be vigorously questioned given that credible, mainstream reports said he was born in Indonesia or Kenya and that Obama himself claimed a foreign-citizen father who never became a U.S. citizen.  More recent reporting from a former detective who conducted a 5+-year investigation into a “long-form” birth certificate image posted at whitehouse.gov on April 27, 2011 said to be a scan of Obama’s original birth certificate from Hawaii revealed that two U.S. intelligence-community agents have averred that Obama’s foreign birth is “an open secret” in Washington, DC.

Two forensic experts agreed that the birth certificate image could not have originated with a real, paper document, Mike Zullo reported at a final press conference on December 15, 2016 stemming from the investigation spearheaded by former Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio.

Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility has also been questioned as a result of his birth in Canada to a then-Cuban-citizen father and presumed U.S.-citizen mother.  Cruz has never substantiated even basic U.S. citizenship by releasing a copy of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA), if his parents ever obtained one for him following his birth in Calgary, Alberta on December 22, 1970.

Citizenship information on anyone, including public figures, is not releasable to FOIA requesters, the State Department informed us.  The same holds true for the Canadian government.

The late Sen. John McCain’s eligibility was the focus of scrutiny in both 2000 and again in 2008 when he sought the presidency due to his birth in Panama to U.S.-citizen parents, one of whom was an admiral in the Navy at the time.

The Electoral College Must Remain

 American Thinker

By Elad Hakim

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., recently introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate the Electoral College.  This was obviously done in response to the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election despite winning nearly 3 million more votes than President Trump.  According to Cohen, the Electoral College is outdated and distorting.

In a recent Fox News article, Cohen was quoted as saying, “Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office.  More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators.  It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President.”

Cohen’s position is clearly partisan, will almost certainly fail, and will face stiff resistance from many smaller states.

According to HistoryCentral, “[t]he Electoral College was created for two reasons.  The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President.  The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.”  The first reason revolved around the possibility that a candidate could manipulate public opinion to such a great extent that it would lead him to secure the presidency.  In other words, the Founders did not believe that the citizens could make the right decision on their own.  Therefore, the electorate served as a system of checks and balances.  This does not appear to be as much of a concern today.

The second reason, however, is still relevant.  Generally speaking, the number of electorates  in a given state directly correlates to the number of congressional representatives in the state.  The minimum number of electorates for a given state is three.  Therefore, the “value” of a vote in a smaller state with a lower population would “count” more than it would in a state with a higher population.  For example, if a state had 90,000 votes and had three electorates, each electorate would represent 30,000 votes.  On the other hand, a large state with 10,000,000 votes and 54 electorates would mean that each electorate would represent approximately 185,000 votes.  Therefore, this system was initially used to appease the smaller states.

Moreover, Cohen’s proposal would likely be rejected by smaller states because it could invalidate the importance of their votes and dissuade people from voting.  It could also allow a small number of densely populated cities to determine the outcome of an election.  According to BrilliantMaps, in the 2016 election, Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton’s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States.  Clinton, on the other hand, won 88 of the 100 largest counties (including Washington, D.C.).  Without these, she would have lost by 11.5 million votes.  These numbers are consistent with historical trends.  Many of the densely populated metropolitan areas in states like New York and California tend to vote for Democratic candidates.  This explains why Cohen and other Democrats would push for an amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

While Cohen’s proposal may find support from Democratic colleagues, it is unlikely to succeed.  First, the Electoral College is established in Article II of the Constitution.  Therefore, to abolish or ratify it would require a two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate and three quarters of the states.  Given the potential impact on various states, including smaller ones, this is unlikely.  In addition, there are alternatives to abolishing the Electoral College, such as eliminating the “winner take all” system, which deals with the method of how the states vote for the Electoral College and not with the Electoral College itself.  Finally, if the popular vote decided an election, what would happen if a candidate didn’t win a popular majority (more than 50%) and won only the plurality?  Given the prevalence of third-party candidates, this is quite likely, as was the case with Bill Clinton, who won only a plurality (43%) of the popular vote, and Hillary Clinton, who also won a plurality (48%) of the votes.  Would we then elect our president based on plurality, as opposed to a majority vote?  This could lead to problems down the road.

While the Electoral College is not perfect, it is the most legitimate system.  It is in line with the intent of our forefathers, protects the smaller states, and helps to protect against the possibility that several very densely populated cities will decide the presidential election for the entire nation

Judge Rules That Nunchucks Are Protected By Second Amendment

https://i1.wp.com/www.celebs101.com/wallpapers/Bruce_Lee/421101/Bruce_Lee_Wallpaper.jpg

Image via taringa.net

 

Daily Wire

On Friday, a U.S. district court in New York struck down a four decade-old state law banning the possession of nunchucks. Judge Pamela K. Chen declared in a 32-page ruling Friday that the 1974 law is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms.

The law was first enacted as a response to state lawmakers’ fears that the popularity of martial arts a la Bruce Lee was inspiring hoodlums to get creative in their choice of weapons. The ban not only applied to would-be criminal nunchuckers on the street, it even banned the weapon’s use in martial arts training facilities. As The Washington Post points out, “They were so dangerous, lawmakers believed, that not even karate teachers could keep them in a locker at home.”

Enter plaintiff James Michael Maloney, a martial arts enthusiast, whose case against the law finally made it the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in January 2017. When the trial began, Maloney underscored the significance of the case in a blog post.

Continue reading

If Democrats Take Congress, Look For Them To Scam The Country Into A Feminist Constitutional Amendment

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.timetoast.com/public/uploads/photos/8595049/1920.jpg?1478605918

Image via timetoast.com

 

 

The Federalist

By

Imagine if the New England Patriots, the losing team of the 2018 Super Bowl, went into the 2019 Super Bowl with the 33 points they earned in their losing game in 2018. That’s the current Democrat game plan on how to implement the deceptively simple-sounding Equal Rights Amendment.

The ERA was first proposed in 1972 and died ten years later, on June 30, 1982, after it failed to gather enough support from the states following an initial seven years for ratification and an additional 39 months. It reads in part, “Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged … on account of sex.” After it failed, ERA supporters started the process over with identically worded amendments introduced into the House and Senate in 1983.

Continue reading

Trump Is Not Only Right To Criticize Jeff Sessions, It’s His Constitutional Duty

https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/world/2018/01/05/mueller-hears-a-trump-russia-revelation-the-president-had-a-lawyer-tell-sessions-not-to-recuse-himself/trump_sessions.jpg

Image via thestar.com

 

The Federalist

By

Recently, an interesting debate erupted on Twitter between Donald Trump (the 45th President of the United States) and his subordinate Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump, who is the head of the executive branch and the boss of Sessions, publicly criticized the Department of Justice, which is not only his right as president, but also his responsibility as the only thin connection tying the ballot box to the DOJ. We should fear a world in which the DOJ, which has the vast power of the FBI and a monopoly over federal prosecutorial authority, does not listen to the voice of its elected master.

Trump said, “I put in an attorney general who never took control of the Justice department.”  He then complained that Sessions surrendered control by recusing himself from participating in matters important to the president.

Sessions fired back, writing, “While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.”

When our attorney general publicly responds to his boss that he will not “be influenced by political considerations,” one has to wonder whether he means that he feels empowered to ignore the “political consideration” that his boss wants him to manage the DOJ differently. We’re supposed to live in a representative democracy. Under Article II of the Constitution, the voters exercise their control over the government through the president.

Sessions went on to write,

Continue reading

You Don’t Get To Rewrite the Constitution Because You Dislike Donald Trump

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/trump-coast-guard-1.jpg?w=954&h=636

Image via theconservativetreehouse.

 

Townhall.com

David Harsanyi

 

If your contention is that President Donald Trump has the propensity to sound like a bully and an authoritarian, I’m with you. If you’re arguing that Trump’s rhetoric is sometimes coarse and unpresidential, I can’t disagree. I’m often turned off by the aesthetic and tonal quality of his presidency. And, yes, Trump has an unhealthy tendency to push theories that exaggerate and embellish small truths to galvanize his fans for political gain. Those are all legitimate political concerns.

Yet the ubiquitous claim that Trump acts in a way that uniquely undermines the rule of law is, to this point, simply untrue.

At National Review, Victor Davis Hanson has it right when he argues that “elites” often seem more concerned about the “mellifluous” tone of leaders rather than their abuse of power. “Obama defies the Constitution but sounds ‘presidential,'” he writes. “Trump follows it but sounds like a loudmouth from Queens.”

But while former President Obama’s agreeable tone had plenty to do with his lack of media scrutiny, many largely justified, and even cheered, his abuses because they furthered progressive causes. Not only did liberals often ignore the rule of law when it was ideologically convenient for them; they now want the new president to play by a set of rules that doesn’t even exist.

Continue reading

Dangerous Times for the Constitution and Freedom

Frontpage mag

by Bruce Thornton

While We the People distract ourselves with porn stars and royal weddings, the cracks in our Constitutional order continue to multiply and widen.

Evidence continues to mount that a sitting president, Barack Obama, colluded in using the nation’s security and surveillance apparatus to subvert the campaign and then presidency of a legitimately elected candidate and president. This effort consisted of numerous illegalities: a mole planted in Donald Trump’s campaign; a FISA warrant granted on the basis of false opposition research paid for by his rival; the outgoing president’s expansion of the number of people allowed to unmask the identity of Americans mentioned in passing during surveillance; a rogue FBI director, James Comey, who illegally usurped prosecutorial powers to exonerate a felonious Hillary Clinton; and other FBI agents colluding in the plot to damage Trump. And don’t forget a Deputy Attorney General appointing the close friend of the fired and disgraced Comey as a special counsel to investigate the non-crime of “collusion,” an investigation that has gone on for a year with nothing to show but a handful of indictments resulting from dubious perjury traps.

To quote Bob Dole, “Where’s the outrage” at these attacks on the Constitution?

Outrage is surely warranted. These assaults on the rule of law and accountability to the people are akin to the catalogue of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” published in the Declaration of Independence. Yet our “watch-dog” media in the main have become the publicists for this attack on the foundations of our freedom, as they flack for the political party that long has resented the limitation of power enshrined in the Constitution. Only a few Cassandras, notably FOX News’ Sean Hannity, are trying to alert the citizenry to the coming conflagration that if unchecked could leave the architecture of our freedom in smoking ruins.

 

In fact, what we are witnessing in the deep-state Democrats’ undermining of divided government, check and balances, and government accountability, is the culmination of a process begun over a century ago. Addled by the false knowledge of scientism and secularism in the 19th century, the progressives took aim at what they scorned as the archaic political structures based on the permanence of a flawed human nature’s susceptibility to corruption by power. Divided and balanced power, the progressives argued, is inefficient and incapable of solving the new conditions and problems created by industrialization and modern technology.

Instead, power must be concentrated, centralized, and expanded. The deliberations and votes of citizens in their towns, counties, and states must give way to the technocrats housed in bureaus and agencies, and trained in the latest discoveries and techniques of the “human sciences.” In 1925, Progressive publicist Herbert Croly expressed this hubristic and question-begging optimism for a “better future” that “would derive from the beneficent activities of expert social engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources which research could discover.” All they needed was the power and authority to create and apply the mechanisms of this new knowledge.

First, though, the Constitution’s antique structures must be altered. This “increased amount of centralized actions and responsibility” required, as progressive historian Charles Beard wrote in 1913, the discarding of the “strong, almost dominant, tendency to regard the existing Constitution with superstitious awe, and to shrink with horror from modifying it even in the smallest detail.” And it required discarding as well the notion of “inalienable” rights that precede government and lie beyond its power, a belief that Beard called “obsolete and indefensible.” Rights can be created by government in order to suit its own ideological and political aims, as FDR promised in his 1944 “Second Bill of Rights,” which expanded rights to include health care, recreation, and a good job, to name just a few of the gifts government would bestow on the people.

Continue reading