Vetting Kamala Harris

As a two-time member of the US Electoral College, I have researched the issue of presidential eligibility quite thoroughly and I believe I have developed an understanding of what the Founders intended that many in the political world still refuse to acknowledge.

Most significantly, the Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development.  Accordingly, what the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to “natural born” citizens was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment or an ideology which might cause him to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution. 

That is why the Framers understood a “natural born” citizen to be a person who was born to parents, both of whom were US citizens at the time of his birth.  That requirement provided no absolute guarantee that we would not one day find a dedicated socialist in the White House, but it provided at least some insurance against such an occurrence.  To understand the Framers’ concerns, one need only examine the leftist political influences that caused Barack Obama to seek to “fundamentally change” the government and the culture of the greatest nation on Earth.  

Another example of what caused such concern among the Framers is Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who, along with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA), failed to meet the “natural born” standard required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Born in Canada, Cruz’s father was a citizen of Cuba who, as a teenager, was a member of the Cuban resistance headed by Fidel Castro.  He made his way to the United States in 1957, enrolled at the University of Texas, and graduated in 1961with a degree in mathematics.  Later, after being transferred to Calgary, Alberta, by his employer and acquiring Canadian citizenship, he and his wife became parents of a son, Raphael Edward “Ted” Cruz, the current junior senator from the State of Texas and a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. 

During that campaign, the American people were led to believe that the Cruzes, both father and son, were solidly anti-Communist.  But that’s only what we were told.  What if the opposite had been true?  What if the elder Cruz had been a dedicated Communist, a Fidelista in sheep’s clothing?  And what if he’d spent decades indoctrinating his son behind closed doors in all the benefits of life in a socialist Utopia?  His son, a conservative firebrand in the U.S. Senate, would have become the prototypical “Manchurian Candidate.”  It is precisely that sort of familial background that caused the Framers to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born.”

But now, just three months prior to the 2020 presidential election, we find that the tendency of Democrats to embrace style over substance rearing its ugly head once again.  As they did with Barack Obama in 2008, they are offering for our consideration a candidate who is not eligible to serve as president or vice president.  I refer, of course, to the junior senator from California, Kamala Harris, who is touted by leading Democrats and mainstream media sycophants as the leading contender to be the Democratic Party’s candidate for vice president in November.

Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, emigrated to the US from India in 1960 and her father, Donald Harris, emigrated to the US from Jamaica in 1961.  Under U.S. law, an individual cannot apply for citizenship until they’ve held a “green card” for a minimum of five years.  Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964.  At best, her mother was a legal non-citizen resident of the US for just 4 years, 9 months, and 20 days when Sen. Harris was born.  Her father was, at best, a legal non-citizen resident for just 3 years, 9 months, and 20 days when she was born.  Neither of Senator Harris’s parents could possibly have been a U.S. citizen when she was born.  Therefore, she cannot claim status as a “natural born” citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution.

What few Americans recognize is that there are only two (2) jobs in the entire United States… public sector and private sector combined… that require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens.  Those two jobs are President and Vice President of the United States.   The term “natural born,” by its very nature, implies that the “quality” of an individual’s citizenship must be absolute… totally unencumbered by any modifying terms such as “dual,” “naturalized,” or “birthright.”  Ms. Harris can be Mayor of San Francisco, she can be Governor of California, she can be a Federal Judge, she can even be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  None of those jobs require “natural born” status.  But unless her parents were both US citizens when she was born, she cannot hold either the presidency or the vice presidency.  If she was born on American soil, to legal resident aliens, she is considered to be a US citizen, but just being born on US soil does not make one a “natural born” citizen.  One must be born of two US citizen parents in order to qualify as “natural born.” 

When the Framers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.  So, is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would have allowed an individual with dual/divided loyalties – e.g. an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy?  Not likely.  It is a preposterous notion on its face.  To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason. 

Nevertheless, the consensus among many in the political/legal world today is that the terms “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are synonymous.  They are not!!  So, the question arises, is there proof of the contention that the Framers intended the terms “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” to be mutually exclusive?  The answer is yes.  It all revolves around the purpose and the meaning of the word “or,” preceding a “grandfather clause” in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The Constitution requires that, in addition to being a “natural born” citizen and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least thirty-five years of age.  However, the only “natural born” citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.  To solve that problem, the Framers added a “grandfather clause,” making it possible for newly-minted US citizens… all residents of the United States for at least fourteen years and all at least thirty-five years of age, but none of them “natural born” because they were born to parents who were not US citizens prior to the Declaration of Independence… to serve as president.  This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to U.S. citizen parents subsequent to July 4, 1776, reached age thirty-five.

Because they were born to non-US citizens prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the first seven presidents of the United States – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Jackson – were all “citizens” of the United States, but none were “natural born” citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth.  

However, Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence.  Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 

A great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americans refuse to accept the fact that, while the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old “natural born” citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation’s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776.  All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was reportedly a British subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. 

The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever hold even partial allegiance to a foreign nation or be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation, as is the case with all dual citizens.  It is for this reason that the Constitution limits candidates for president and vice president to those who are “natural born” citizens,and to those who were citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted.  Were that not the case, and had the Framers considered the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” to be synonymous, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution would now read, simply, “No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” In 2008, Democrats were able to craftily define the issue as one relating to Barack Obama’s place of birth, and to label those who insisted he lacked eligibility by reason of not being born on American soil as “birthers.”  It became the deadly “third rail” of the 2008 campaign, effectively preventing any honest debate of the issue.  Thus, on two occasions in our political history we have allowed the presidential eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 to be twisted and contorted to fit the political mood of the day.  We cannot allow that to happen again.  We cannot allow our Constitution to be amended by popular fiat.  If Kamala Harris were to be properly vetted, she would be found to lack the qualifications necessary to the office of Vice President.

Posted in Paul's Prescience | Leave a comment

Time to Act ..

The Tenth Amendment Center, which I follow closely, has most of the answers to the tyrannical challenges to our Republic … it is the Federalist amendment to the Constitution, the tenth article, and probably the most mis-understood and most crucial Bill affecting our Republic in the “Bill of Rights”… “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This most recent article by the Center is just too timely not to share with those of you who are not aware of it … so here it is …

For years, the Tenth Amendment Center has drawn the ire of both the American right and left, but generally for different reasons. To the left, we were neo-Confederates trying to mask our desire to somehow reintroduce slavery and Jim Crow segregation by promoting nullification and state’s rights. We draw the ire of the right for challenging unconstitutional wars and the federal War on drugs.

While we have detractors from both sides of the political divide, the most vocal opposition almost always originates from whichever side hold federal power at the moment.

During the Bush years, we frustrated the right because we stood against unilateral executive war powers, the REAL ID Act, the so-called Patriot Act and more. During the Obama years, the left railed against us because we opposed Obamacare, Common Core, the IRS, the War on Drugs, police militarization, gun control, even the Supreme Court imposing its own definition of marriage on the states.

Now we’ve gone full circle.

Although presidents have changed, our position remains the same: “The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.”

Meanwhile, the tunes sung by both political movements in the country have switched entirely. The right, once the advocate of decentralization, is now pushing for greater executive power. Meanwhile, the left has suddenly come to appreciate, perhaps begrudgingly, the role of nullification as the “rightful remedy” that people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison offered to combat federal tyranny.

How ironic that people who for years seethed with contempt for the founding fathers and everything they stood for have suddenly developed an appreciation for the philosophy they fought, suffered, and even died to preserve!

Some have found this flip-flopping amusing, perhaps ironic. To them, it’s a game played between both sides. When one wins, they switch talking points and strategies. In years past, that might have been humorous. But I find no levity in the situation, or the prolonged, rampant hypocrisy.

It’s a game this country can no longer afford to play.

It has done indescribable damage to our political system, our government, and the Constitution. What’s more, it is not sustainable. Calls for defending the Constitution and limited government now fall on deaf ears because Americans who hear it and might have otherwise listened know that those who proclaim it are disingenuous and opportunistic. Adhering to the rule of law is now the trite punchline of an old joke.

The Constitution is not a political buffet. We don’t get to pick and choose which parts of it we will follow and what parts we will ignore because we don’t like them.

For it to have any real meaning or force, the whole document must be followed and its constraints acknowledged. To do otherwise is to make a mockery of the very concept of a written constitution. In doing so we regress to the days of the British Crown that only afforded a “living, breathing” constitution that had no definite meaning beyond the temporary moment

The time will soon be upon us when Americans of all political stripes must decide whether we are going to accept the Constitution as it is written or reject it entirely, because the pretense of federalism has at last come to an end.

If Americans refuse to do this; if they insist on violating it to impose their will on their fellow countrymen, then they invite the very question of why they live under the same government in the first place. We can no longer waver between freedom and tyranny. If we wish to be free, then fight for the freedom of all. If not, then do not be surprised when your opponents use the very same tyranny you would wield against them to subjugate you.

–TJ Martinell, TAC

Posted in Lee's Musings, Pot Pourri | Leave a comment

Things I Don’t Understand

Occasionally, I come across works by other people that pretty well tell it like it is. I found this on the internet written by a man I do not know, but thought that you might like it if I shared it with you.

Things That I Don’t Understand

by Joseph M. Valenzano

1. Rioters and protesters tore down the monuments to Francis Scott Key, author of the Star-Spangled Banner, our National Anthem, and the statue of Father Junipero Serra, founder of the Spanish Missions in California. The monument to Christopher Columbus in NYC was defaced as was St. Patrick’s Cathedral. The New York Museum of Natural History just decided to remove the statue of Teddy Roosevelt, which has stood at the entrance of the museum since 1940.  It seems that young revolutionaries want to rewrite our history, but how is that possible? You cannot erase history; you can only learn from it. George Santayana once wrote, “those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it.” So, I am wondering, if we consciously try to erase history and rewrite it as we believe it should have been, how will we ever learn of the mistakes we made in the past so that they will not be made again? But here’s a thought: Why not get back to teaching history instead of advocacy in schools?

2. So, if a police officer shoots a criminal after being assaulted by that criminal, it is the cop’s fault, but if a criminal shoots someone, it’s the gun’s fault? Help me understand that, please. 

3. I have lived in America for all my 75 years. I am probably old-fashioned, but it has been my experience that police typically leave you alone if you are not doing illegal stuff. So here is another thought: How about teaching our kids to be responsible for their actions and respect police, adults, and senior citizens? This is a process that begins in the home. 

4. Does Black Lives Matter (BLM) include aborted black babies, murdered black police officers, black on black killings, or does BLM respond only when a white police officer kills a black man or woman? 

5. So, now the classic movie Gone with the Wind has been removed, and high school students no longer are asked to read the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain or To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.. They are banished from school curricula. That is sad and a significant loss from an educational perspective.  Does anyone remember Hattie McDaniel? She was the first black American actress to win an Oscar for her performance in – wait for it – Gone with the Wind. Is her name and performance now cast aside and gone forever because of the new revolutionaries telling us what we can and cannot read or see? 

6. Rest in Peace Aunt Jemimah (1893-2020) and Uncle Ben (1943-2020). Cause of death: Liberal Stupidity. Whatever happened to Common Sense? 

7. Why would President Barack Hussein Obama have a Presidential Library? What the hell would it contain? 

8. In the last four years, can you name any piece of legislation, any program that benefited America and Americans coming from the Democrats? What exactly have they done over the last four years? Come to think of it, Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate for President and former VP under Barack Hussein Obama, is an enigma. He has been in government 51 years! What exactly has he done for America and Americans in all those years? What is his platform?

9. The Prophet Mohammed was a pedophile, murderer, and slave trader. Why are there no riots to burn down mosques? How about the Pyramids of Egypt? Slaves built them. Why are there no riots and efforts to destroy these? Ditto for The Great Wall of China. 

10. Maybe it’s just me, but if I have a problem with my faucets, drains, or showers, I call a plumber to help. If I have a question about taxes, I call my accountant. If I have a fever or upset stomach, I call my doctor. But if I want advice on politics or economics or international relations, I would not be inclined to call Lebron James or any other athlete. How about you?  

11. I read where Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was laughing, and high-fiving people for scamming the Trump Rally in Oklahoma and having teens and others register for advance tickets to it and not show up. Fascinating! But here’s a question: If these liberal democrats can do this, what will they do with mail-in voting?  

12. I find it ironic and a bit humorous that the very first thing the insurrectionist wanna-be tough guys who took over a six square block segment of Seattle did was – wait for it – build a wall! Why did they do that? (Don’t answer, I think I figured it out)  

13. I read earlier today that rioters in California tore down the statue of Ulysses S. Grant, former President and General, who defeated the Confederacy and wreaked havoc on the KKK in South Carolina. He was vehemently opposed to slavery.  Wonder what he did so wrong as to elicit the ire of the mob? Could it be that the mob was not so concerned about Blacks but more concerned about simply tearing down everything to do with America?  Makes you really wonder about just what BLM(black liberal morons) and Antifa( anti fatherhood) stand for, doesn’t it? And who the hell oversees these well-orchestrated riots?  You see, a mob has a leader, so who is the leader? George Soros? Barack Hussein Obama and OFA? Someone is calling the shots to undermine our way of life. I’d really like to know. Wouldn’t you? 

14. Sometimes I find myself wondering why we are so obsessed with trying to find intelligent life on other planets when we can’t seem to find intelligent life right here on Mother Earth? 

15. Someone needs to explain to me why the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 57,000 COVID-19 deaths, and the media reports over 120,000 deaths. Why the disparity? 

Equally, I would like to know the distinction between those who died from COVID-19 and those who died with COVID-19. 

Am I just not smart enough to understand these things? 

But here is what I do understand and for which I need no explanation:  Americans live in the greatest country on planet earth, and I have been all over this world so I can make that statement.

We the People have the most excellent medical care in the world.

We the People earned more Nobel Prizes than any nation earth by a factor of ten. 

We the People have pioneered the exploration of space and are innovators in technology. 

We the People have accumulated more wealth and prosperity than any other country on the globe and have the highest standard of living known to man. 

We the People have abolished slavery, prevailed in two World Wars, and saved Europe twice in the 20th century. Instead of reaping the spoils of war, we invested in rebuilding Europe and Japan in the aftermath of the devastation of WWII. And we did all of this in 244 years as compared to other nations whose histories go back millennia! 

America is a free country and, if you don’t like it here, you don’t need to destroy other people’s property and businesses to satisfy your primal, uncontrolled emotions, nor do you have to tear down our historical monuments. You can pack up and leave. 

I’m just guessing about this, but I bet if I looked carefully, I would not see any anchors on your ass keeping you here. 

A few days ago, we will be celebrated Independence Day, the Birthday of our Nation. It is a golden opportunity to put aside personal differences and salute the fact that we all wake up every day as free men and women thanks to those who paid the ultimate price for that privilege. 

Happy Birthday, America!

Posted in Lee's Musings, Pot Pourri | Leave a comment