Is Kamala Harris Eligible to be President?

JUNIOR CA SENATOR MAY RUN IN 2020

by Sharon Rondeau

(Aug. 19, 2018) — Given that California Sen. Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia biography states that she was born in Oakland, CA in 1964 to immigrant parents and speculation exists that she plans to run for president in 2020, Golden State citizen Gary Wilmott has been seeking information as to her citizenship status and whether or not she meets the constitutional requirement of “natural born Citizen.”

The Wikipedia entry states that Harris’s mother, Dr. Shyamala G. Harris, was from India, arriving in Berkeley, CA in 1960.

Dr. Harris passed away in February 2009.  Her “Legacy” obituary states that she arrived alone in the U.S. at the age of 19 after having earned her undergraduate degree from Delhi University.

Kamala’s father, Donald Harris, is a retired Stanford University economics professor whose biography affirms that he arrived in the U.S. in 1961 as an “Issa Scholar” from Jamaica.  It adds that he was born in Jamaica and naturalized in the U.S. but does not provide the year.

Neither parent reportedly was present in the U.S. as a legal resident for five years prior to Harris’s birth, a requirement to apply for naturalization, Wilmott observed in an interview with The Post & Email on Thursday.

After her parents divorced when she was seven, Wikipedia reports, Harris’s mother was granted full custody of her two daughters, after which they moved to Quebec, Canada.   Dr. Harris’s obituary, reposted at SFGate on March 22, 2009, states that her medical research took her to McGill University in Montreal for 16 years.  It further reads, in part:

Her passion for science was augmented by a fervent commitment to social justice. While a student at Berkeley in the ’60s, she became fully engaged in the Civil Rights Movement, leading to a lifelong fight against injustice, racial discrimination and intolerance. She instilled these values in her daughters, who in turn have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of justice and equality – one as the first female elected District Attorney of SF and the other as vice president of Peace and Social Justice at the Ford Foundation in NY.

According to Wikipedia, Harris graduated from Westmount High School in Westmount, Quebec, presumably in 1981 or 1982.  However, Harris’s U.S. Senate biography does not say that she lived and obtained most of her public education in Canada:

Growing up in Oakland, Kamala had a stroller-eye view of the Civil Rights movement. Through the example of courageous leaders like Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Charles Hamilton Houston, Kamala learned the kind of character it requires to stand up to the powerful, and resolved to spend her life advocating for those who could not defend themselves.  

Wilmott considers a “natural born Citizen” to be an individual born to two U.S.-citizen parents subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  He openly admits that his own birth in the United Kingdom to then-British-citizen parents disqualifies him from that subset of Americans.

During our interview, Wilmott told us that at the end of last year, local “scuttlebutt” had it that Harris was eyeing a 2020 presidential run, prompting him to research her constitutional eligibility.  Further supporting speculation that Harris will declare herself a 2020 presidential candidate are numerous articles dating to just after the 2016 presidential election.

An August 15, 2018, an opinion column in the Long Beach Press-Telegram contended that “the betting website Oddshark just published brand new odds for the 2020 presidential race — and for the first time California’s junior U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris has tied Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the betting favorite among potential Democratic candidates to win the election.”  At the same time, the writer believes “that the soft-on-crime policies that Harris helped pass while serving as the district attorney of San Francisco and California attorney general directly contributed to the complete breakdown of one of America’s most beautiful cities,” referring to San Francisco.

The writer’s views on Harris’s approach to prosecutions appear to be supported by statistics cited by Wikipedia.

Before providing an answer to his own question, writer and radio show host John Phillips asked, “When, and if, Kamala Harris decides to run for president of the United States, voters will undoubtedly ask themselves the question, ‘Do I want the whole country to look like San Francisco?’”

Since early this year, a myriad of mainstream reports have cited San Francisco’s growing sanitation crisis powered by homelessness and rampant drug use, with discarded hypodermic needles and tent cities a common sight in some areas.  Some have compared the situation there to that of a “third-world” country for various reasons.

An August 8, 2018 editorial cited the same statistics source at SFGate favoring Harris as a Democrat presidential contender.

Harris served as City and County of San Francisco District Attorney from 2003 to 2010, when she was elected California Attorney General.  She served one term, was re-elected in 2014, but in January 2015 announced her intention to seek the U.S. Senate to be vacated by the retiring Barbara Boxer.

Harris’s Wikipedia entry is arguably not particularly favorable to her.  Under the subheading, “2020 Presidential speculation,” it reads:

Kamala Harris has been considered a top contender for the 2020 Democratic nomination for President.[145][146] She has publicly stated that she is “not ruling it out”.[147] Her spending on Facebook advertising is unusually high, and targeted to reach voters outside California.[148][149]. In July 2018, it was announced that she would publish a memoir, another sign of a possible run.[150]

On November 11, 2016, The Huffington Post published an article titled, “Meet Kamala Harris, Who Could Become The First Woman President.”

As early as July of last year, a Democrat involved in fundraising reportedly said that Harris “is ‘absolutely’ running for president.”

In September 2017, Newsweek reported that “PredictIt, an online political stock market, now lists Harris as the most valuable of the possible 2020 Democratic nominees, higher even than Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, as well as than former Vice President Joe Biden.”

On August 9, 2018, Buzzfeed News reported that “California Sen. Kamala Harris is headlining a Martha’s Vineyard reception next week amid a swell of excitement here for her possible candidacy for president.”

On August 10, 2018, a letter to the editor in The Los Angeles Times opined that “Kamala Harris is a lot more qualified to be president than Donald Trump.”  The article did not raise the constitutional eligibility issue.

On Sunday, The Hill wrote that “A year and a half into her first term in office, the Judiciary Committee’s most junior member is already seen as a potential presidential front-runner.”

Former Obama eligibility litigant Commander Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret) recently posted an article arguing that Harris is not constitutionally qualified.  “Senator Harris is not being transparent on this issue and her office staff has refused to answer any questions on this subject,” Kerchner wrote. “Given Kamala Harris’s year of birth, and her parents emigration years, she was born in the USA to two foreign nationals and thus inherited their respective birth nation’s citizenship when she was born, in addition to being a basic Citizen by being born in the USA to aliens legally domiciled here. Thus Senator Kamala Harris was born with citizenship and required allegiance at birth to three countries. This is hardly what the founders and framers intended when they selected the “natural born Citizen” requirement for the person who would in the future be permitted to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military, once the founding generation was gone.”

Citing the Wikipedia entry and the five-year naturalization requirement, Wilmott told us, “Each of the parents has to be here five years to apply for citizenship. So if she was born in 1964 and the father came in 1961, adding five years to that, he could not have become an American citizen until 1966, at the earliest.  So I immediately wrote a letter to her, which you posted.”

Wilmott’s December 4, 2017 letter to Harris references questions surrounding Barack Obama’s eligibility given that no verifiable proof of his alleged birth in the U.S. exists and he claims a father who was never a U.S. citizen.  As the result of a five-year criminal investigation, the “long-form” birth certificate image posted at the White House website in 2011 bearing Obama’s name was declared a “computer-generated forgery” in March 2012.

Wilmott’s letter to Harris states, in part:

I couldn’t help but notice that the press has recently been extolling you as the next “Obama” and the inevitable frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. While this growing presidential buzz may be quite intoxicating for you, I suggest that you take a serious look at Article II of the U.S. Constitution, i.e., the presidential eligibility clause.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that a president be a NATURAL-born citizen, which you clearly are not. At the time of your birth, BOTH of your parents were citizens of foreign countries, so your birth in California makes you at best a NATIVE-born citizen (anchor baby?) under the prevailing view of the 14th Amendment. Lest you think that I have Republican bias I would also point out that presidential wannabes Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio also fail to meet this higher standard of citizenship. Their campaigns were fraudulent and in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

He reported that his letter received no response.

Early last month, Wilmott wrote Harris a second letter asking about her parents’ naturalization or absence thereof:

The letter concluded with, “I look forward to your prompt response.”

“I personally don’t think she is a viable candidate and will not run,” Wilmott told us, “but I do think she’s being looked at as a vice-presidential candidate, and she’s not eligible.”

The 12th Amendment states that the vice president must possess the same qualifications as the president.

Regarding political operatives’ consideration of constitutional requirements, Wilmott remarked, “At the end of the day, they don’t care about the Constitution; they care about their self-serving aspirations and being in the limelight. If Harris is paying attention, she knows the whole history and that the same situation could come up again.  The reason the ‘birther’ issue has never been put to rest is that we know we’re right and we have the Constitution on our side.”

Since 2008, anyone questioning Obama’s eligibility has been called a “birther” or a “racist.”  On Friday, the lead investigator of the “long-form” image posted at whitehouse.gov, Mike Zullo, announced that two intelligence-community professionals informed him that “it’s been an open secret” in Washington, DC that “Obama could never satisfy the constitutional requirement of being born on American soil.”

Of his July 2 letter, Wilmott said, “I sent it ‘snail mail’ to all six district offices and waited a month.  On the very day of the one-month anniversary, I got a letter in the mail, and it was absolutely a typical response from a politician, thanking me for writing about ‘the state of our nation.'”

“It says nothing about what I asked her,” Wilmott observed.

 

 

 

“It’s an absolute insult that these people feel they can fire off a form letter and completely ignore what was written to them,” he further said.  “So I picked up the phone and called her LA office and spoke with a man who was rather indignant when I told him I wanted to know if Senator Harris’s parents were ever U.S. citizens.  ‘Well, that’s private,’ he said, and I said, ‘Why is it private that I know whether or not her parents are citizen or not?  After all, if she’s being touted as a candidate for President of the United States, I know that she has to be a natural born Citizen, and for me, that means her parents must have been American citizens at the time of her birth.  Just because Obama got away with it doesn’t mean we have to sit on the sidelines and watch this continually go on.’  And he said, ‘Well, sir, Obama was born in the United states,’ and I said, ‘So what? That doesn’t make him a natural born Citizen.’ He said, ‘Sir, he was born in Hawaii,’ and I said, ‘That, sir, does not make him a natural born Citizen; perhaps a native-born citizen but not a natural born Citizen.’

“He kept cutting me off and I said, ‘I want to speak with your supervisor,’ and he said, ‘I’ll have him call you.’  I said ‘Yeah, right…’ and he said, ‘I’ll have him call you.'”

“I never heard from him,” Wilmott said.

“If the Wikipedia article is correct, I know that her parents had not been in the country long enough to have been U.S. citizens at the time of her birth,” he continued.  Further, he speculated that “if she runs, I think she’s going to play the ‘gender’ card and ‘race’ card, and I don’t think that does anybody any good.  Those have not worked out well for us.”


Editor’s Note:  This article originally misstated the 25th Amendment as requiring the vice president to possess the same qualifications at the president when it is, in fact, the 12th Amendment which contains that language.

 

Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news.  She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.

31 Responses to "Is Kamala Harris Eligible to be President?"

  1. Eric Otto   Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 6:25 AM

    From Black Law Dictionary online: What is NATURAL-BORN?

    “the term applying to the person who is born in the country where they are a citizen.”

  2. 12thGenerationAmerican   Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM

    Kamala is an Anchor Baby!

  3. Seamus   Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 1:27 PM

    Barack Hussein Obama ruined the fabrc of the United States, by design, with his fundamental transformation. He used race as the jihadi weapon to do it and everyone who is a shade ligher than Kamala Harris is considered a racist until proven otherwise. We hear accusations of racism a hundred times a day. I’m convinced that Obama still tells the MSM to continue the racist drumbeat, and find it behind evey rock, sideways glance, greeting, or Wall.
    If you want a continuation of Obama, then Harris is your ticket. She was bred on “justice.” And carries the same disdain for the United states as Obama, and, and as demonstrated time and again during public hearings, she is is the epiotmy of arrogant Rude, loud, like a pitbull. I don’t care is she was born on the WH steps. She is unfit to be president of THIS nation. Perhaps she should try Canada or Jamaica.

  4. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 24, 2018 at 1:52 AM

    Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be President. She is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen”. Her Mother was an Indian Citizen when Kamala was born. Her Father, a Jamaican citizen. It is happening again. Constitutionally barred IMPOSTERS are encroaching on OUR Presidency.

  5. Richard   Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:51 PM

    Kamala and Obama can be what ever they want because the Constitution means nothing – it has no standing for us to rely on. The constitution is a dormant doc due to the 1783 Treaty of Peace. Remember, on paper the English won the Revolutionary War and were awarded the spoils of war so the King could pay for his he King’s business venture supported by his English Esquires, and Mason implants known as Ben Franklin, John Jay and Thomas Jefferson. Yes, traitors not hero’s. Come on guys know your American history. How many more crimes do we have to identify past the 1783 Treaty of Peace which actually made all government crimes allowable till this day. That Treaty did not recognize the people as sovereigns, it took away the rights of people to govern themselves, they couldn’t manage their money because King George was made Arch Treasurer of the united States of America. No more God’s Law and Natural Law they got the English Maritime Law and now we called it the BAR. And maybe of real importance is no more Allodial Land Title allowed as real property ownership system where the real property is owned free and clear of any superior landlord. We the People get to pay rent in the form of taxes and fees.
    No recognized sovereignty you are a citizen debt slave and without any real standing but to receive what the government gives you and can take away.
    Remedy is to make null and void the Treaty and rewrite it in our favor so we are never to be used as cannon fodder again. Until then SOS differant day.

  6. Gary M Wilmott   Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 11:47 PM

    Actually under the legal doctrine of coverture which was commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution and actually persisted into the 20th century, the FATHER’S citizenship was paramount. A foreign citizen wife’s citizenship was subsumed at marriage by the American citizen husband. The married couple were essentially one person in law and both American citizens. A child born to married progenitors (I know it’s a big word) of the aforementioned circumstances would thus be considered a Natural Born Citizen.

  7. Jeffrey R Hardin   Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:43 PM

    Kamala Devi Harris is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    Rafael Edward Cruz is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    Marco Antonia Rubio is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    Piyush Bobby Jindal…is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    John Sidney McCain III is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    Barack Hussein Obama is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    Nimrata Randhawa Haley is Naturalized….Not Natural Born

    If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law or statute “(naturalization for example)”, they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.

    NOT ALL Citizens @Birth are Natural Born…
    All Natural Born Citizens are Citizens @Birth….

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of [parents] who are [citizens].” – Law of Nations

  8. SandyT   Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 9:29 PM

    Kamala Harris is NOT a natural born citizen. Her birth in Oakland, CA to non-citizen parents made her ONLY a citizen, not a natural born citizen. Birth on U.S. soil + citizen father + citizen mother = natural born citizen, period! She is not constitutionally eligible for the presidency or vice-presidency!

  9. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 10:37 PM

    It’s a crying shame that common, non-elite U.S. citizens are the ones that must be pro-active to vet and to bring to the attention of the mass electorate potential candidates for the Executive Branch of this Constitutional Republic. Critical Article I and Article II government positions should dictate critical vetting, including the following at a minimum:

    1. A background investigation using Standard Form (SF) 86 covering their entire lifespan and the results of this SF86 document should be made public to all constituents one year prior to election.
    2. A lie detector test should be a mandatory requirement before being added to the ballot.
    3. The SF86 results should be used by an independent civilian organization to assess suitability for a minimum Top Secret classified clearance. If a person is rejected for this Top Secret classified clearance, they also should be rejected for the ballot.

    Here’s a little help and a reminder for a certain previous commenter (hint: it’s not G.M.W.) from Emmerich De Vattel on how to determine who may be a natural born (U.S.) citizen as directed by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as formed by our Founding Fathers who were highly influenced by De Vattel’s teachings.

    § 212. Citizens and natives.
    “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.”

    See https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ for additional information on The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758).

    Parting shot: Article I candidates do not need to be a natural born (U.S.) citizen, but must otherwise be a U.S. citizen – plain vanilla, if-you-will as dictated by positive law.

  10. Lew Harper   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 6:00 PM

    The People’s say is limited on the Federal level to electing officials who select judges that reflect the People’s philosophy. At the state level, the People have the ability to directly vote for judges who reflect the People’s philosophy. For example in San Diego, Gary Keep was elected as a judge. Kreep worked with Orly Taitz in some of the earliest eligibility lawsuits. Unfortunately his judicial career has not progressed as many might have hoped.

  11. Gary M Wilmott   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 5:32 PM

    MC Duff you’re dreaming if you think the courts and the deep state government give a darn about the people and law and order. The evidence that substantiates my premise is out there for all to see.

  12. M.C. Duff   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 1:04 PM

    The courts issue rulings, which are legally binding on the people. If the people think the courts got one wrong, the people (via their representatives or ballot initiatives) can change the law (or amend the constitution), as permitted. The people (again through their representatives or the ballot box) also can remove errant judges via impeachment, recall, not re-electing them, or other procedures as permitted by law.

    Civil disobedience also is an option for the people. But those who ignore judicial rulings that they don’t agree with should expect the government to punish that disobedience.

  13. Sharon Rondeau   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 12:34 PM

    Who has the final say: the courts or the people?

  14. Lew Harper   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 12:17 PM

    Who actually decides what is a Supreme Court precedent?

    Who decides how to interpret a Supreme Court opinion?

    Isn’t it the lower courts? Litigants make an argument that this Supreme Court opinion or that opinion supports their position and the courts (the trier of law) determines which of them is right.

    Several courts have ruled that Wong Kim Ark is the binding precedent and several have specifically said that Minor v. Happersett is not.

    So until the Supreme Court steps in and rules the lower courts are wrong, the case law supports Senators Harris, Rubio, Governor Jindal and Ambassador Haley.

  15. M.C. Duff   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 11:17 AM

    A greater court can overrule a lower court’s ruling, but until that actually happens, the lower court’s ruling is the law. Which is exactly what happened with Ankeny.

    Ankeny is the law only in Indiana. But no judge or legal scholar ever has said that Ankeny got it wrong, or that Minor requires two citizen patents.

  16. James Carter   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 7:39 AM

    As if the Supreme Court has to specifically rule that one it’s cases trumps a lower court’s case, or that a lower court somehow got it wrong. Lower court judges can reject a Supreme Court ruling until the sun doesn’t shine but their opinion doesn’t trump that Supreme Court ruling.

  17. M.C. Duff   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 11:17 PM

    The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that Minor “trumps” Ankeny, or that Ankeny somehow got it wrong. And judges have rejected the argument that Minor requires two citizen parents.

  18. Sharon Rondeau   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 11:04 PM

    Look into it and report here what you find.

  19. James Carter   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 7:56 PM

    Malachy Doyle wrote:
    The Ankeny opinion was a published opinion by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously refused to hear the appeal.

    Under Indiana rules that makes Ankeny binding on all Indiana state courts. So in Indiana the legal definition of a natural born citizen is based on the Ankeny decision.”

    Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution the Supreme Court trumps all lower courts. That means Minor vs Happersett, for just one, trumps Ankenny

  20. Lew Harper   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 7:33 PM

    Why is there no raised seal?

    Why are the typed entries all pixelated?

    Look at box 12 Birthplace of the Father – NYC is pixelated almost as if it came from a different document that was at a different resoltion than the black background.

    Could this document be used to obtain a passport?

  21. Sharon Rondeau   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:44 PM

    Is this a short-form? http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/TrumpCertificate.pdf

  22. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:33 PM

    For the WHY the “natural born Citizen” clause, a national security clause, was added to the U.S. Constitution for the eligibility requirements for the singular most power office in our federal government, President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, and its original intent, meaning, and understanding to those who put it in there see this White Paper: https://www.scribd.com/doc/300919680/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-the-natural-born-Citizen-Term-in-Our-U-S-Constitution Unfortunately the courts are for the most part controlled by the two major political parties on this subject with each of the two parties having their favored non-natural born Citizen candidates and thus far this has not been permitted to get to the U.S. Supreme Court due to lower court technicality rulings such as “standing” and/or by the U.S. Supreme Court dodging cases which did petition them.

  23. M.C. Duff   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 2:18 PM

    Ankeny wasn’t a SCOTUS case, but many judges cited it when concluding that Obama was a natural-born citizen. No judge or legal scholar has ever said that Ankeny was wrongly decided.

  24. Lew Harper   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM

    Also too, for completeness, when Trump obtained his birth certificate from New York, it was a short form with no hospital or doctor listed, no signature of his mother, no raised seal and marked void.

    https://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/trump-birth-certificate.jpg

  25. Gary M Wilmott   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 11:41 AM

    Tron that would mean that Anwar Al-Awaki, born in New Mexico to Yemeni citizen parents was eligible to run for POTUS. Ridiculous on its face.

  26. Malachy Doyle   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 11:32 AM

    The Ankeny opinion was a published opinion by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously refused to hear the appeal.

    Under Indiana rules that makes Ankeny binding on all Indiana state courts. So in Indiana the legal definition of a natural born citizen is based on the Ankeny decision.

    So all anyone needs to do is get a different state court to rule that a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents and the case will have to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Simple

  27. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:34 AM

    The Ankeny case, a state court case and not a U.S. Supreme Court decision, incorrectly stated what the 1898 Wong Kim Ark U.S. Supreme Court case decided/held. The WKA case held that Wong Kim Ark (who was born in the USA to non-Citizen parents who were legally domiciled in the USA) was a Citizen. It did not decide that he was a “natural born Citizen”. See the discussion about the Ankeny case in IN and the 1898 WKA Supreme Court case at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/search?q=Ankeny Also see: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html The U.S. Supreme Court ducked all the cases regarding hearing if Obama was a “natural born Citizen”. Justice Thomas stated that in a Congressional hearing. See this article for more on that: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/search?q=Justice+Thomas

  28. Tron   Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 9:01 PM

    YEP, SHE’S ELIGIBLE ALRIGHT..

    This is the ruling that U.S. courts defer to when ruling on NBC.

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidanceprovided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of theUnited States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

    SEE Ankeny v. Gov of Indiana

  29. James Carter   Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:01 AM

    Kamala D. Harris

    Dear Kamala,

    I would like to infom you that, contrary to your opinion, every American DOES NOT have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to (free) education, public safety and healthcare.

    I would also like to inform you that, once again contrary to your opinion, every American DOES have a Constitutional INALIENABLE right to keep and bear arms.

    Thank you for your opinions. If you have any doubts as to which of our opinions is correct please do not hesitate to take me to the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Cordially,
    The U.S. Constitution

  30. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 10:47 PM

    Kamala Harris not a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards. She is missing two legs. See: https://www.scribd.com/document/385966818/Kamala-Harris-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-USA-to-Constitutional-Standards

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.