Here We Go Again?

First it was Barack Hussein Obama. Now it’s Kamala Devi Harris. Is either Democrat a natural born citizen? Obama ran for the presidency without anyone affirming that he was qualified to be president. The Constitution requires a person to be a natural born citizen.

To date, Obama still has not proved his eligibility under the Constitution. To be a natural born citizen, one must have been born within the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.

Despite claims to the contrary by his supporters, including the media, Obama has never provided a verifiable, 3-dimensional, historically accurate, legal birth certificate to any court or to the public. No one has examined the original birth certificate, indeed if one even exists.

An investigation by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of AZ came to the conclusion, based upon expert analysis, that the so-called “birth certificate” posted online in 2011 is a composite document, created digitally, and thus is not a legal document. No court of law or government agency would accept a digital image on a blog as proof of citizenship.

Now comes Kamala Harris, who apparently has pondered running for the presidency. Who knew that, like Obama, Harris also has questionable eligibility? In fact, her eligibility is even more suspect than Obama’s.

Obama, at least, had one U.S. citizen parent (if you believe that the woman he claims as his birth mother truly is his birth mother).

There are many unknown variables that affect Obama’s eligibility. Was he truly born in Hawaii? If so, on U.S. territory? When? Where in Hawaii? Was he, as indicated by school records, ever a citizen of Indonesia? Was he truly born with Kenyan and/or British citizenships because of the citizenship of the man he claims as his father?

Did he officially surrender any or all foreign citizenships before running for the presidency? If he ever gave up his U.S. citizenship (provided he had it in the first place), did he at some point later naturalize as a U.S. citizen?

We still don’t know the answers. Without knowing for certain the facts about each variable, then Obama’s eligibility for the presidency remains suspect.

Harris was born in 1964 in Oakland, CA, if her online biographies are correct. Has anyone seen her birth certificate?

Harris’s mother emigrated to the U.S. from India in 1960, according to online biographies, although Harris once said that her mother emigrated in 1959. Her father emigrated to the U.S. from Jamaica in 1961. Reports are that at some point her father naturalized in the U.S. Unknown is whether or not her mother ever obtained U.S. citizenship.

Despite what some online biographies state, Harris was not raised and educated in California. From the “mid-70s” (grade school age, perhaps earlier) through high school, Harris lived in and was educated in Montreal, Canada.

Because neither parent could have qualified for U.S. citizenship by 1964, when Harris was born, then likely she was born to two non-citizen, foreign parents. Ordinarily, immigrants must live in the U.S. for 5 years before being allowed to apply for citizenship. Is this why at one point Harris claimed her mother came here in 1959?

While Harris would then be considered an “anchor baby” with “birthright” U.S. citizenship (provided she really was born in CA), this would constitute “native” citizenship, not natural born citizenship, as required by the Constitution, if a person wants to run for the presidency.

Unlike Obama (allegedly), neither of Harris’s parents was likely a U.S. citizen at the time of her birth; thus she appears to be ineligible for the presidency.

Harris was (arguably) also born with Jamaican and/or Indian citizenship. Depending upon what happened when she moved to Canada and began school in that country, she may have also naturalized there as a Canadian citizen. Did she? Nobody knows because Harris’s office appears to be ignoring these very valid questions.

Harris had an odd response when asked in 2009 whether she’s ever been married:

Not officially,

she replied.

What, exactly, does that mean? Like newly elected Representative Ilhan Omar, was Harris married “religiously” and not legally? (We won’t address here the issue of Omar’s potential bigamy and/or incestuous and/or fraudulent other marriage.)

But I digress …

Do Democrats and other progressives deliberately seek to circumvent and undermine the Constitution?

Are they deliberately trying to globalize our nation by putting forward candidates who have questionable natural-born allegiance to our nation?

Is this their way of changing what it means to be an American and diminishing the role of presidential allegiance to this nation, as well?

Do Democrats and like-minded progressives prefer a president who has no special allegiance to the United States, all the better to hew to globalist priorities instead of being (gasp!) a nationalist like President Trump?

Why must Democrat candidates have such amorphous, ever-shifting, non-specific biographies?

Why must they be more like progressive archetypes than like real people–real Americans–with verifiable histories instead of blank-slate fantasies?

Both Obama and Harris spent formative years in foreign lands. As a result, it’s mandatory to question whether each holds sole allegiance to the USA, as required by the  Constitution. It remains unknown whether either holds, to this day, dual, triple, even quadruple citizenship.

Also like Obama, Harris grew up as a child of “privilege,” although she, like Obama, has tried to pass herself off as an oppressed child of color.

Oddly enough, like Obama, Harris has a sister named Maya. (Harris’s sister actually worked for Hillary Clinton!)

Again like Obama, Harris’s parents divorced and various time frames have been given for when the divorce happened. Some stories say it was when Harris was 7; others say it was when she was 5.

Also like Obama, Harris traveled as a child to foreign countries, visiting relatives. What passport did she travel on, one wonders?  Canadian? Jamaican? Indian? Will anyone ask Harris what passports she holds?

Despite that progressives claim to love transparency, neither Obama nor Harris is transparent. Repeated queries to Harris’s office have been met with stonewalling. Why is that?

If Kamala Devi Harris run for the presidency, be prepared to hear rabid accusations of bigotry and “birtherism” from Democrats and the media, should anyone dare to question her qualifications, even though every candidate should prove that he or she is fully qualified under the Constitution.

It’s incumbent upon everyone in this nation to honor the Constitution and the rule of law, presidential candidates most especially.

h/t Zenway. See commentary here.


167 responses to “Here We Go Again?

    • Is there a corresponding article for the REAL First Lady? It’s interesting how Moo now wears sleeves and how there’re nearly always strategically placed peplums, jacket hems, flounces, or drapes across the crotch-al area.

  1. F ~ Most blacks never forgave the whites for slavery which puts them under God’s curse. The Bible says if you don’t forgive others God will not forgive you. I’d like to see every America Hating Black spend a few Days in Africa living like They D O ; they’d kiss the ground when they got back to the good ol’ land of the F R E E .

    E ~ Most people , if you go back FAR enough in their history , where held as slaves 1 time or another ,even Jews ! <<<<< !

    • Quibble: Whites in general don’t need to be forgiven for slavery. Blacks, whites, and Native Americans ALL held slaves in the U.S. So why are only “whites” blamed for it? Nobody alive today in this country is responsible for slavery and so no forgiveness needed. Blacks were as responsible for the slave trade as whites who accepted the slaves captured and sold by blacks, so will blacks forgive those blacks? What about the Arabs who created the slave trade? The people who need to be forgiven are the people who participated in the slave trade and who bought and sold people. Nobody in this country is still living who participated in it, so there’s nobody responsible alive today and nobody who needs forgiveness.

  2. always about the OBAMA’s ? BUTT’ ha’ WHO … R THEY? REALLY?

    • Whatever happened to the tradition that you don’t name things after someone until he or she is dead, anyway? Tradition broken, so can we look forward to the Trump Expressway, the Donald J. Trump Elementary, and the Melania Trump University?

  3. ~ Mr. Pibb says:
    “If you like your expressway name, U can keep your expressway name…”

    ~ Don says:
    Doesn’t Chicago have a city dump they can rename? ….. ^^^^^ ha’!

  4. facebkwallflower

    Look at citizenship boxes for WW1 draft registration.

    • Yep. And it used to always be on the census. Anybody who does genealogy knows that. So why’s it a problem now to ask for it on the census? Actually, that category is about as clear as mud. So back then one became a citizen automatically only if the father naturalized before the kid reached legal age? It would seem to imply, therefore, that Harris only became a U.S. citizen when her dad naturalized, so long as it was before she was legal age (still a child). In which case, as you probably wanted us to see, unless her dad naturalized she wasn’t automatically a citizen upon birth.

      • And so OBVIOUSLY, she couldn’t be a natural BORN citizen.

      • facebkwallflower

        Actually, I was thinking of the original usurper. Does not say when “a parent” naturalized nor “mother”. Just “father” and his father never naturalized.

        • In his case, if his parents are the ones he claims are his biological parents, which I doubt, then he was (arguably) a native or national of the U.S., because of his mother’s citizenship. His father never naturalized here, as you say. It always was the FATHER’S citizenship that was automatically conferred upon wives and children, but of course surely the SCOTUS would rule that they can’t discriminate now, since women are now (arguably) equal citizens (since we got the vote), and so they allow women/mothers to pass citizenship to their kids.

          Now if he was born NOT on U.S. soil, then he would not have received his mother’s citizenship because she was too young to pass it to him. So he would be only a Kenyan/UK citizen, which is possible. But then again, we really don’t know who his parents are. I still tend to believe that his Big Lie was an even bigger lie than many suspect and that not only wasn’t he born here but he also isn’t even African-American. But we may never find out. I really do think that Ann was a woman along the lines of Angelina Jolie and Mia Farrow. Foreign adoption. A foundling she found during her anthropological adventures. Or else, conversely, maybe he really is Lolo’s and Ann’s, but not BHO Sr.’s.

          In Harris’s case, though, if you go by the logic of those old WWI registration records, Kamala probably isn’t even a U.S. citizen because her father didn’t naturalize, most likely, based upon timing, until AFTER she was born. But others would say she is simply by having been born here–the old “birthright citizenship” that isn’t even conferred by any law or the Constitution. Her mother apparently never naturalized.

          We have just her word for it, anyway. Who’s ever seen her birth certificate or her father’s naturalization proof? It’s exactly the same as Barry. No documents. Just take their ever-changing words as truth.

          • facebkwallflower

            Yep. To everything you share,

            • facebkwallflower | December 30, 2018 at 7:26 pm | Reply
              Yep. To everything you share, ^^^^^
              YEP!!! & U 2 & all the rest of US that HANG in till death do we PART

              & 4 ALL the WTP …putting UP with my silly ways …. thanks! also!!!
              I feel so like a hog ..most days .. Life is NOT a BOWL of CHERRY’s
              just ask LameCherry … 2….


    i did not feel that hillary clinton should be the first female president of the united states. i felt she had some drawbacks just as harris or obama has. for instance, the citizenship of mrs. clinton is not questioned, but, her loyalty to america might be questioned since she has admitted to having visited, for whatever reason, almost two hundred countries. too much of a good thing might be a bad thing in some instances. in addition, hillary had an infamous eight years that her fellow candidates did not have which would bring the clintons back into the whitehouse for a total of sixteen years? entirely too much even without the impeachment and the infidelity scandal. so one does not have to be a minority to have a questionable background as far as a presidential candidate is concerned and apparently i was not the only one that felt this way as it turns out mrs. clinton is still satisfied with her husband, bill clinton’s presidency being enough. afterall, it is the american people that would have the responsibility in the long run. we have never had a female president and maybe one day we, america, will, but, when the time presents itself.

    • It has nothing to do with the person’s race. It has everything to do with the law and the Constitution and the set-in-stone qualifications for a position. With Obama and Harris and even Ted Cruz–it’s a matter of the facts. If their parents weren’t citizens and if the child wasn’t born in the U.S., then they’re not natural born citizens and are not eligible to be president. They also MUST provide proof of their qualifications, in my opinion. Not just digital images on the Internet that everybody knows can be photoshopped. If a candidate is born in Canada, for example, to a mother who was born in Scotland and a father who was born in England, that we would question that person’s credentials, too, no matter the skin color.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s