Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to serve as President or Vice President. She is not a “natural born” citizen. Neither of her parents were American at time of her birth. Those 2 Offices are the only two that the Constitution says MUST be Natural Born Citizens!
There is no argument except the one that is used by defeatist Conservatives.. "well we let Hussein Obama do it"! OK BUT NEVER AGAIN .. NEVER AGAIN!
Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for holding the office of president or vice president. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT WE MUST FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.. THEN WE CANNOT ALLOW EXCEPTIONS.
Children of foreign nationals inherit the
nationality of their foreign national parent(s).
Natural born citizen means born here of citizen parents.
People born with divided loyalties, allegiance and citizenship are not
naturally Americans.
The children of foreign nationals are precisely who the founders were excluding
from the office.
Only when one cannot be anything else can one be a natural born citizen. No foreign birth.
No foreign parent(s)
No foreign citizenship(s)
No foreign influence on the Presidency is what John Jay stated in a letter to
George Washington as the reason for insisting on a natural born citizen.
Here is the birth Certificate. There is NO DOUBT... PERIOD!
It appears Kamala Harris is attempting to pull a Barack Hussein in
2020, failing to meet the citizenship requirement to serve as president,
but running anyway. Why not? Hussein got away with it. The “natural born citizen” language in the Constitution, as
inconvenient as it may be, is where both Hussein and Harris fall short
in qualifying to serve as president.
Now the Left will use their tried and true but Tired old DOG WHISTLE THAT TURNS REPUBLICANS IN TO CHIHUAHUAS.. IF YOU QUESTION A NON WHITE OF ANYTHING THEY DON'T LIKE.. YOU ARE A RACIST. REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES RUN TO THEIR CORNERS AND BEG FOR MERCY. NO NO NO.. I AM NOT A RACISTS.. I APOLOGIZE! FORGIVE ME!
I DO NOT I WILL NOT. EVER! I DON'T CARE WHO THE HELL CALLS ME A RACIST! FUCK THEM! WELL THERE ARE THE FACTS!
HERE ARE UNDENIABLE FACTS! Kamala Harris Neither of her parents were US citizens when she was
born, this automatically disqualifying her from serving as president. As with
all children born to foreigners in the United States, Harris is a
“naturalized” citizen, a so-called “anchor baby,” not a “natural born”
citizen, a night and day difference in terms of qualifying to serve as
President of the United States as outlined in Section 1, Article 2 of
our Constitution. From Kamala Harris’ Wikipedia page: “Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California, to a TamilIndian mother and a Jamaican father.”
HERE ARE THE FACTS! 1. Kamala Harris is an anchor baby, born to a Caucasian Indian mother and a Jamaican father. Until and unless Harris can prove otherwise, this appears to be true, as Harris’ birth certificate, below, proves. 2. Kamala Harris is not African-American, she is Jamaican-Indian. Technically,
true, although I believe Harris is leaning on her Jamaican heritage to
claim African descent, as many Jamaicans were descendants of African
slaves. 3. Kamala Harris is not eligible to hold the position of President of the United States. True, according to all that we know and Section 1, Article 2 of our Constitution. "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, 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."
Information as to when Kamala Harris’s parents got their US
citizenship seems to be buried so we cannot find it. Its a Typical Lefty Trick. They did that with Hussein Obama
But we know that
1) her mother immigrated to the US in 1960 from India and
2) her father
immigrated to the US in 1961 from Jamaica.
Usually people immigrate to the US when they
get their working visas or Green Cads.
It takes 5-6 years to get a US
citizenship after getting a Green Card. So, in the best case scenario, if her
parents her Green Cards and not just visas, they could not get their citizenship
until 1965-1966.
This means that when Harris was born in 1964, she was a daughter of two
foreign nationals, not US citizens, who were residing here on visas.
For this
reason Kamala Harris is a US citizen ) Like ANY ANCHOR BABY! ) but is not a Natural born Citizen and CANNOT BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW...
be eligible to run for President. This has nothing to do with race, it has
everything to do with nationality. At her birth she inherited Indian and
Jamaican citizenship and has a split allegiance.
IF THE LEFT'S LOGIC IS TO BE USED.. THIS MAN TERRORIST PREACHER
Anwar al-Awlaki couldalso Run to be President of the United States by Birthright Citizenship!
A U.S. citizen born to Yemeni parents, Awlaki spent the early years of
his life in the United States before his family moved back to Yemen. Then he came back Just Like Kamala Harris did from Canada!
Awlaki became a citizen because his Yemeni mother happened to usher him
into the world while his father, a scientist from a prominent Yemeni
family was studying at New
Mexico State University. BIRTHRIGHT ANCHOR BABY CITIZENSHIP!
1. 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.
2. 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!
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: ASK
WHY !! ITS TO COVER UP THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE QUALIFICATION OF
"Natural Born Citizen"
SO LETS READ UP ON FACTS!
Senator Kamala Harris talks in her bio how she was born in and
grew up in CA. But, she did not grow up there during her formative
years! She is engaging in clever wordsmith-ing deception about her
early life narrative. She is avoiding any focus on how much of her early
life was spent living in Canada.
She is also avoiding transparency
about her parents citizenship status when Kamala was born. Kamala
actually spent all her formative years in Canada with her foreign born
mother when her mother moved there when Kamala was age 7. She graduated
from high school in Canada.
Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards since both of her parents were foreign nationals
who were NOT U.S. citizens when Senator Harris was born in the USA. She
is missing two legs of the three legs of the ‘natural born Citizen’
test. She is of course a basic “Citizen” at birth per the Wong Kim Ark legal decision by the U.S. Supreme Court of 1898,
and as such she is eligible to be a U.S. Senator, but she is not a
“natural born Citizen” at birth, and thus is NOT eligible to be
President and Commander in Chief of our military or the Vice President, per our U.S. Constitution. She inherited multiple allegiances at birth due to her parents being foreign nationals living in the USA when she was born. Senator Kamala Harris did not have sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to the USA and only the USA.
Some other politicians besides Kamala Harris (D) in the two
major political parties who have been mentioned for future election to
high national political office, who are also not a “natural born
Citizen” to constitutional standards are: Marco Rubio (R), Ted Cruz (R), Bobby Jindal (R), and Nikki Haley (R).
Both major political parties are choosing to ignore the founders and
framers intent and understanding of what a “natural born Citizen” is in
order to run candidates that they believe are very marketable political
candidates. This started in a major way in the 2008 election cycle with Obama vs McCain.
U.S. Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen‘ of USA – NOT Eligible to be President and Commander-in-Chief of Our Military per U.S. Constitution
Senator Kamala Harris’s staff has refused to answer any questions
regarding the citizenship status of her parents when she was born. The
normal path to becoming a naturalized U.S. Citizen takes five years. Kamala Harris was born in 1964. Her father emigrated from Jamaica to the USA in 1961. Her mother emigrated from India to the USA in 1960.
Thus there was not sufficient time for either of Kamala’s parents to
become naturalized U.S. Citizens. Kamala’s father eventually became a
naturalized U.S. Citizen per his bio. It is not known at this time if
Kamala’s mother ever became a naturalized U.S. Citizen. She moved to
Canada with Kamala when Kamala was about seven years old. It is possible
that Kamala’s mother might have naturalized at some point as a Canadian
citizen. Kamala Harris’s mother is now deceased.
As I said in the first sentence, Senator Harris is not being
transparent on this issue and her office staff has refused to answer any
questions on this subject. 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.
As per ‘Principles of Natural Law‘ in place at the time of the founding of our country and when the founding documents including the U.S. Constitution were written, a ‘natural born Citizen’ is one born in the country to parents who are both Citizens (born Citizens or naturalized Citizens) of that country when their child is born in the country. See ‘The Three Legged Stool Test‘
for a graphic presentation of this constitutional requirement as to who
can be President and Commander in Chief or our military. See the Euler Diagram shown to the right for a logic diagram presentation of this constitutional
Now some Ignorant Idiots will tell you that because of the Kim Wong Ark Vs US that she IS A CITIZEN. Yes she is a CITIZEN .. like anchor babies are.. but NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States
imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure
due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to
understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning
what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of
Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires
detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual
suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth? Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born
and yet not a native born citizen of this country. There were even
disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the
territories were born citizens of the United States (they were generally
referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make
no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as
Madison explained it, the “powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined,” and those
“which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and
indefinite.” Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was simply an exercise of a States “numerous and indefinite”
powers. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State
Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a
State. James Madison said citizenship rules “have obtained in some of
the States,” and “if such a law existed in South Carolina, it might have
prevented this question from ever coming before us” (question of Rep.
William Smith being a citizen or not). Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.”
These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV,
Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was
required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the
United States. Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of
the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual
allegiance to the King, however natural citizenship via birth could
require being born to a British subject depending on the era in
question. After independence this perpetual allegiance to the crown was
abandoned for the principle of expatriation. It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and
American law are of two different species. Under the common law one
owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth for
which could never be thrown off. Under the American system there was no
individual ruler to owe a perpetual personal allegiance to. Furthermore, unlike the British practice, States required everyone
including aliens to take an oath of allegiance to the State as a
condition of residency. Children born to these residents were considered
born into the allegiance of the State. In addition to this, States also
had specific laws that banned citizenship to alien born who were not
resident aliens who had declared their allegiance. New York for example,
responded through enactment of a law to the ruling in Lynch v. Clarke
(1844) that had used common law rules of citizenship by birth to
specifically exclude children born to “transient aliens, and of alien
public ministers and consuls, etc.” In other words, unlike under the common law, birth by itself did not create allegiance to anyone due merely to locality. Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”? It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the
old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British
doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders
considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process
required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other
governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally
becoming a citizen. House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United
States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen
is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” It
wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a
citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims
him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal
obligations, e.g., military duty. Under the old English common law, birth was viewed as enjoining a
“perpetual allegiance” upon all to the King that could never be severed
or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual
allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country;
often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense.
America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born
subject” in June of 1812. Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of
the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming
naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels
blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American
ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British
born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be
British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on
behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war. Fourteenth Amendment Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born
citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written
national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or
naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born
“subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States – a condition not
required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to
the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to
anybody else,” which is vastly different from local jurisdiction due to
physical location alone. This national rule prevents
us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because
it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one
claim of allegiance. The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard,
said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so
as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United
States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the
United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by
the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” This remark by Howard puts his earlier citizenship clause remark into
proper context: “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.” United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S.
Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the
Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction”
under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.” Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means
the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens,
i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation
since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other
nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes arguing
the physical presence of being subject to laws silly because being
subject to another countries laws while visiting makes no change to an
aliens allegiance to their native country. Natural-Born Citizen Defined One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was
natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If
a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for
example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads
us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the
founders recognized and embraced. Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to
establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s
citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth.
This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard
said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue
of “natural law and national law.” The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between
nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is
to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent.
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other
nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every
human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:
Does the gentleman mean that any person,
born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no
law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the
Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of
the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits
of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other
sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white?
There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not
recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess.,
407 (1862))
Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural
word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the
child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be
born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to
the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to
be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the
allegiance of the Nation. As
the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of
location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country
of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off
their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one. This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to
anyone else was the effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States
to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George
Tucker:
That provision in the constitution which
requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he
were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,)
is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever
it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague.
The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be
too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which
foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign
power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of
the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince,
emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would
have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their
common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To
have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited
and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was
designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington
warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a
variety of evils,” and goes on to say:
Sympathy for the favorite nation,
facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases
where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities
of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels
and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It
leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied
to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the
concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been
retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to
retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who
devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or
sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes
even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense
of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable
zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition,
corruption, or infatuation.
What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require
the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his
American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born
anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his
native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life
to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and
intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a
naturalized citizen. Conclusion Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon
locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no
extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On
the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law
and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize
citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?). Thus, a
natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of
nations rather than mere local recognition. Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations
for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every
person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such
States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners
or representatives of foreign Governments.”* When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a
natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of
where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship
through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law
whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had
become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a
citizen father. Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member. * Temporary sojourners like transient aliens were a
description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The
difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such
as work, travel, visitation or school, who had no desire to become
citizens or was prevented from becoming citizens by law. Resident aliens
were those who desired to become citizens and had renounced their prior
allegiances and had taken the legal steps to become citizens or reside
within some state per state law. UPDATE: In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother:
Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their
children except in certain situations such as the father dying before
the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.
So Patriots do not let the lefty dog whistle scare you into submission.
Here is the Supreme Court Decision in 1874 defining Natural Born Citizen
Minor is without a doubt the MOST important Supreme Court decision on the subject of what a Natural Born Citizen is. Those that want to muddy the waters on this subject will do anything to make it irrelevant. It is the one decision they fear the most. They will bring out English Common law, Blackstone anything they can think of to muddy the waters and they will fight to the death on this subject.
The nomenclature of the times of the Founding fathers was Vattel.
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874), U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of PARENTS (plural) who were its CITIZENS (plural) became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Minor was unanimous and written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite; a unanimous opinion by the Chief is the strongest statement the Court can make.
Here is the nomenclature of the times of the Founding fathers. This is the language our founding fathers followed when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
Vattel`s The Law of Nations or the Principles of the Laws of Nature: “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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
All of the cases listed below refer to Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) as the authority of citizens and Natural Born Citizen
Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), an essential case which confirms Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship:
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;” (Emphasis added.)
Lockwood directly cites Minor as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship
City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) because it cites Minor as a continuing precedent on the voting rights issue 60 years after the adoption of the 19th Amendment. This kills the argument that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment. Here is the relevant passage as it appears at Justia today un-scrubbed:
“More than 100 years ago, the Court unanimously held that “the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. . . .” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 178. See Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. at 360 U. S. 50-51. It is for the States “to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised . . . , absent, of course, the discrimination which the Constitution condemns,” ibid.”
Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’m of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978),
Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937),
US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941),
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935),
Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911),
Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939),
Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245 (1934),
Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980),
Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47 (1907),
Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904),
Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969),
Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962),
N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928),
Slaughter-House cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873),
Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982),
THIS IS ELIZABETH WARREN LONGTIME FRAUD AND LEFTIST
Follow the money: The FRAUD OF ELIZABETH WARREN Breaking News Global on 6 Dec. 2017 had a stunning but expected report
that will probably end the expectations of a second senatorial term for
Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat Senator from Massachusetts and to send
her political career into ignominious flames of defeat. Why? Because she
received her fake law faculty position at Harvard Law School for lying
on her employment application that she was a fake Native American (
a.k.a. “Pocahontas”), thus causing her Republican opponent, Dr. Shiva
Ayyadurai, PhD (M.I.T.) inventor of Email, an Indian-American running as a contender for
Warren’s Senate seat in 2018 who cleverly declared that “only a real
Indian can defeat a fake Indian.” “I’m looking forward to going against
Warren. You know, I know how these elites work. I know I can defeat
her,” he said. Trump during the campaign repeatedly said that we would win so much
that we would “get tired of winning.” Since We the People are not tired
of winning … yet! Let U.S. support Dr. Ayyadurai in his valiant efforts
to unseat the fake Indian, fake Harvard Law Professor, creator of the
fake CFPB government agency that is in realty a slush fund to launder
fees confiscated illegally by the CFPB apparatchiks to funnel extorted
funds (so far totaling over $5 billion) to the Democrat Party Machine
and to criminals like Obama, Warren, Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi and the
rest of the Democrat Socialist Party. Enough is enough. Interim Director Mick Mulvaney, audit the CFPB,
trace and account for every fraudulent dollar, indict all wrongdoers,
and then dismantle the corrupt CFPB immediately! CFPB = Rogue Agency Slush Fund to Enrich Democrat Campaign Donations TRANSCRIPT: “Trump just uncovered Elizabeth Warren stole five billion
dollars from US taxpayers what she did with it will make you sick. The
signature achievement of Elizabeth Warren while in the Senate has been
the creation of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau or CFPB. It was
created to act as a watchdog for the financial industry following the
2008 home loan financial crisis. Now it’s all coming out what she’s
allegedly responsible for doing and it’s not good.” “Trump has appointed Mick Mulvaney to head the agency; a man who has
called the agency a joke before and said that he doesn’t believe it
should even exist. I’m sure Warren must be thrilled, it’s a good thing
too because it means a man aware of the reality of the situation at the
bureaucratic nightmare that is the CFPB. According to an explosive Wall
Street Journal piece last year titled, The Consumer Financial Protection Racket,
the paper’s editorial board takes an axe to the law. Instead of
protecting consumers the CFPB has complied record of abuse rivaling that
of Washington’s most entrenched bureaucracies and may be operating
outside of the parameters of the Constitution, the Wall Street Journal
editorial stated that they quoted lawyers representing a mortgage lender
called PHH which had been appealing the CFPB increasing a 6.4 million
dollars penalty the firm already owed to an additional $105 million.
How? It appears that they just created law out of thin air, the
president and the Congress have no control over this agency, PHH’s
lawyers stated in court.” “The only check on this agency is right here, if it isn’t for the
judiciary this agency could do anything it wants. It’s arguably an
unconstitutional agency and one that has no problem wasting money. CFPB
pays 56 employees more than the $199,700 Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke receives. Federal reserve
governor’s get $179,700, a figure exceeded by 111 CFPB workers.
Six-figure salaries go to 741 employees or 61% of the CFPB workforce
with one in four taking home dollar $150,000 or more.” “According to the Gateway Pundit Warren has been allegedly operating a slush fund. The New York Post’s Paul
Sperry reports that the CFPB is engaged in a wide variety of corruption
– everything from amassing secret ledgers, to using penalties to
launder funds and to left-wing causes. Of course, because the CFPB
operates independently of the US government, a full audit of the
agency’s balance sheet has never been done.” “This sad reality may very
well change under Mulvaney’s leadership. According to the New York Post
report bounced business owners and industry reps from secret meetings
that’s held with Democrat operatives, radical civil rights activists,
trial lawyers and other “community advisors,” according to a report by
the House Financial Services Committee. Retained GMMB, the liberal
advocacy group that created ads for the Obama and Hillary Clinton
presidential campaigns, for more than $40 million, making the Democrat
shop the sole recipient of CFPB’s advertising expenditure … funneled a
large portion of the more than $5 billion in penalties collected from
defendants to community organizers aligned with Democrats – “a slush
fund by another name,” said a consultant who worked with CFPB on its
civil penalty fund and requested anonymity.” “Reports of the CFPB awarding lucrative contracts to left-leaning
organizations is nothing new the CFPB award at GMMB the Obama Hillary ad
firm a $14.7 million contract for agency media and resource
communication in June of 2017 and a 16 million dollars payday to
marketing materials about student loans and mortgages. The post also
discovered that the CFPB’s activity is raising more than a few privacy
concerns. CFPB has secretly assembled giant consumer databases that
raise individual privacy as well as corporate liability concerns, one
sweeps up personal credit card info and another compiles data on as many
as 230 million mortgage applicants focusing on race and ethnicity.” “While Ronald Reagan once observed that nothing lasts longer than a
temporary government program, the CFPB was intended to be permanent and
may now only be temporary. On his first day on the job Mulvaney
instituted a 30-day freeze on all new hiring and creating of new
regulations at the CFPB. The banking industry breathed a sigh of relief
when he did so as they and industry analysts have long observed that
some of the harsh and unjust regulations created and enforced by the
agency had driven thousands of banks out of business. The agency should
have been eliminated long ago it’s a relief that the captain of that
ship appears to be heading deliberately into an iceberg.” [END of
TRANSCRIPT] Big Lie Disinformation vs. Veritas (Truth) To demonstrate the incessant disinformation and propaganda by the
Democrat Party Big Lie Media (no pun intended for BLM or Black Lives
Matter), one has only to look at two headlines – the first dated 27 Nov.
2017 by the Washington Post, a worthless rag owned by the billionaire
Gestapo Globalist Jeff Bezos, was titled – Sorry, Mr. President. You can’t make Mulvaney ‘acting’ head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
You can even see in the title the arrogant, condescending tone of the
article that we at the Washington Post know better than you, the
unwashed, “Deplorable” masses; you just sit there, shut up and like pigs
at the trough, eat the Big Lie garbage we give to you every day. Apparently, the Big Lie Media didn’t get the memo delivered to
America on 8 Nov. 2016 and given full legal effect on 20 Jan. 2017.
There is a new sheriff in town concurrent with the election of Donald J.
Trump, the 45th President of the United States. Trump has made it
Mission #1 to destroy the Deep State and Shadow Government traitors
infesting the D.C. swamp and then fully drain the swamp to make
government accountable and fearful of We the People again, who at the
creation of this Republic on July 4th 1776, were given the mandate to
create this Constitution of the United States and all three branches of
government – the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. The second headline based on Veritas (truth) was from that same
propaganda rag the Washington Post, dated 28 Nov., written in the form
of an unstated retraction of the article on the same subject written the
previous day that I cited above. The unofficial retraction article was
title – Federal judge rules that Trump’s choice can remain at head of consumer watchdog bureau. Candidate Trump warned U.S. that we would get tired of winning so much and now I see what he means. Regarding rampant but protected criminality is societal institutions,
Justice Louis Brandies famously said that “Sunlight is the best
disinfectant.” The CFPB awarded GMMB, the Obama-Hillary ad firm, a $14.7 million contract for
“agency media and resource communication,” in June of 2017 and a $16
million payday to marketing materials about student loans and mortgages.
“Most likely President Trump will not appoint a replacement until
Mulvaney has exposed the corruption within it. That sunlight is toxic to
Elizabeth Warren and can potentially be politically destructive to the
Democrats.” wrote Sundance of Conservative Treehouse on
November 27th. It is suspected that these amounts while considerable in
its levels of political criminality by the Democrat Sociality Party,
pales in comparison to the level of intrinsic criminal by the CFPB’s
activities which as stated before from its inception were purposely
shrouded in mystery. However, I am confident that the Trump
administration with OMB Director Mick Mulvaney at the helm will shine
the light of Veritas and expose Senator Warren the criminal slush fund
of the CFPB that to date has pumped over $5 billion dollars into
Democrat Socialist causes, while doing very little to help protect
citizens from financial fraud. I agree with the New York Post writer Paul Sperry’s reports that
the CFPB is engaged in a wide-variety of corruption. Everything from
amassing secret ledgers to using penalties to ‘launder,’ funds into
left-wing causes. Of course, because the CFPB was funded not by Congress
(as constitutionally mandated by all other agencies), but by the equally unaccountable, unconstitutional Federal Reserve,
Senator Warren and the Obama administration purposely created a rogue
agency without checks and balances from Congress and thus functions
independently of the U.S. Government, therefore a full audit of the
agency’s balance sheet should be enacted by President Trump’s interim
CFPB Director, Mick Mulvaney ASAP. Only then can this typical Socialist
solution to a real problem (2008 Wall Street and home loan financial
crisis), be effectively addressed not with another bloodsucking layer of
unaccountable, unconstitutional bureaucracy abusing U.S. business, but
by identifying all illegal activity in the U.S. financial sector, purge
it and bring all criminal wrongdoers like Senator Warren, President
Obama and the staff of the CFPB.
Longtime professor at Harvard Law School
Advocates
a federal student-loan program that would forgive students one year of
college expenses for each year they worked in public service after
college
Calls for greater “regulation” by the government to counter the devious tactics of “lenders who have deliberately built tricks and traps into some credit products”
Was
appointed in 2008 by Senator Harry Reid to chair a Congressional
Oversight Panel to monitor the effectiveness of the $700 billion
Troubled Assets Relief Program
Supports a federal bailout of American families facing bankruptcy
Has spoken on panels with George Soros and Van Jones
Was
appointed (in 2010) by President Obama as special assistant in charge
of organizing and establishing a new Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau
Was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012
Beginnings
Born in June 1949 and raised in Oklahoma, Elizabeth Warren earned a
B.S. from the University of Houston in 1970 and a J.D. from Rutgers Law
School in 1976. She subsequently taught law at the University of
Pennsylvania, the University of Texas, the University of Houston, the
University of Michigan, and Rutgers. Then, in 1992 she began a
two-decade stint as a professor at Harvard Law School.
Warren Claims Native American Heritage
In 1984, Warren, claiming to be partially of Cherokee heritage, contributed five recipes to a cookbook titled Pow Wow Chow,
which was edited by her cousin and was, according to its introduction, a
compilation of “special recipes passed down through the Five Tribes
families.” It was later learned, however, that Warren had plagiarized
at least three of her five recipes. Two of those three originated at Le
Pavilion, an exclusive French restaurant in Manhattan, and, according
to Breitbart.com, “had appeared in an article written by Pierre Franey of the New York Times News Service that was published in the August 22, 1979 edition of the Virgin Islands Daily News.”
Warren copied both of the recipes word-for-word. The third plagiarized
recipe, “Herbed Tomatoes,” was apparently lifted from a 1959 piece in Better Homes and Gardens. For further details about Warren’s plagiarism, click here. In April 1986, when Warren was a professor at the University of Texas
School of Law, she filled out a handwritten registration form with the
Texas State Bar in which she identified her race as “American Indian.” This fact would not be reported by any media outlet until February 2019. From 1986 to 1995, Warren—without specifying her heritage—listed herself as a minority professor in the Association of American Law Schools Directory. A 1996 article in the Harvard Crimsonquoted Harvard Law spokesman Michael Chmura identifying Warren as “Native American.” Two years later, the paper dubbed Warren “the first woman with a minority background to be tenured” at the law school. According
to historian Victor Davis Hanson, Warren “dropped her Native American
claims as soon as she at last received tenure and found her … con
suddenly superfluous—to the apparent unconcern of her similarly cynical
but now mum employer, Harvard.”
Warren and the FDIC & NBRC
In addition to her professorial pursuits, Warren also has been a member of the FDIC’s Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion, which focuses on “expanding access to banking services” and “promot[ing] asset accumulation”
for “underserved populations.” Moreover, she has served as vice
president of the American Law Institute and as the chief adviser to the
National Bankruptcy Review Commission.
Warren Co-Authors Book About an Unfair Financial System
In 2003 Warren and her daughter, Amelia Tyagi, co-wrote a book titled The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke.
The authors contend that because of the high fixed costs that
modern-day Americans face, two-income families today are generally less
financially stable than were single-income families in the 1970s. Warren
and Tyagi portray a financial system where “the game is stacked
against” ordinary Americans who seek “to provide a decent life for their
children.” In the book’s Introduction, Warren praises leftist
organizations like the Center for American Progress, Demos, the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, and the New America Foundation
for having helped raise people’s consciousness about “issues related to
families’ economic stability.” She also notes, proudly, that her book
has been quoted by such Democrat luminaries as Howard Dean, John Edwards, Richard Gephardt, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.
Claims of Racial Injustice in America
On March 19, 2004, at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, Warren spoke at a symposium entitled “Critical Race Theory: The Next Frontier,” alongside a number of academics who, according to
FreeBeacon.com, “have advocated for corporate and government
reparations for African-Americans, criticized the concept of U.S.
citizenship, and accused the United States of operating under a system
of ‘apartheid.'” Founded by the late Derrick Bell, critical race theory
is an academic discipline which maintains that society is divided along
racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to
the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines. Warren subsequently published an article in connection with that symposium, in the Fall 2004 issue of Washington and Lee Law Review. Entitled “The Economics of Race: When Making it to the Middle Is Not Enough,” Warren’s piece stated:
“A growing body of work examines how black families are
having much greater difficulty accumulating wealth and how tax codes or
other seemingly neutral statutes systematically disadvantage black
families…. Hispanic and black homeowners face sharply increased risks of
filing for bankruptcy as compared to their white counterparts. These
data reinforce the view that middle class Hispanic and blacks are far
more vulnerable to the financial difficulties facing every family.”
Flipping Homes for Profit
In 2006 Warren and her daughter co-authored a second book, titled All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan, wherein they identified as a myth the idea that “you can make big money buying houses and flipping [reselling] them quickly.” But as National Review Online (NRO)has
chronicled, Warren herself had already bought and sold several
properties in her native Oklahoma for substantial profit. Specifically:
Warren and her husband purchased a home for $50,000 in 1991,
subsequently filed permits for mechanical and plumbing repairs, and
eventually sold the house in 1998 for $109,500, a 119% gain.
In August 1993 Warren bought a home for $30,000, quickly obtained
permits to do plumbing and electrical work, and sold it five months
later for $115,000, a 383% profit.
Also in 1993 Warren purchased a foreclosed property in Oklahoma City
for $4,000. Eleven years later she transferred the home to her brother
and his wife, who eventually sold it for $30,000 in 2006; neither Warren
nor her brother had ever filed any permits to make improvements on the
dwelling.
In June 1993 Warren bought another foreclosed property in Oklahoma
City for $61,000 and, despite filing no building permits to renovate,
sold it for $95,000 in December 1994.
In 1994 Warren purchased yet another Oklahoma City house for $72,000
and, having filed no building permits to renovate, sold it for $104,000
in 1998.
Also in All Your Worth, Warren counseled against
borrowers taking out home equity lines of credit. “Whether you are
borrowing to pay down your credit card debt, play the stock market, or
travel to Tahiti,” she wrote, “borrowing against your home is still
borrowing–period. It is not saving, it is not smart, it is not savvy. A
second mortgage or a home equity line of credit is plain old
Steal-from-Tomorrow debt.”
Proposing the Forgiveness of College Loans in Exchange for “Public Service”
In 2007, Warren wrote a piece in the Harvard Law and Policy Review
proposing the creation of a federally funded “Service Pays” program in
which the government would “increase the amount students can borrow” for
college loans, and would then “forgive students one year of college
expenses for each year the student worked in public service after
college.” This, Warren explained, would enable “typical students” to
“begin adult life debt-free at twenty-six with a college diploma and
four years of work experience.” Such an arrangement, she added, should
also be extended to students who failed to graduate from college. Warren envisioned Service Pays as “a reformed Peace Corps that would
place young people with aid and development organizations around the
world,” to assist with such tasks as “rebuilding after natural
disasters”; “teaching English”; “improving water usage”; teaching math
and science in “urban and rural schools with a substantial minority or
lower-income student body”; running “after-school tutoring programs”;
“clean[ing] up public buildings and parks”; “rebuild[ing] roads and
bridges;” “improv[ing] the environment”; and “organiz[ing] communities
to reduce crime and develop the local economy.” Added Warren:
“Non-profit organizations that want to participate in Service Pays could
apply to the program and be considered on the same basis that AmeriCorps
currently uses: ‘Direct service activities must address local
environmental, educational, public safety,… or other human needs.”
Critics of Warren’s proposal observed that it had the potential to be
used as a means of assigning young adults to work with leftwing
organizations that would indoctrinate them to a particular political
viewpoint.
Calling for More Government Regulation on Banks
Also in 2007, Warren began to advocate for the creation of a federal
agency – modeled on the Consumer Product Safety Commission – to protect
the public from “over-priced credit products, risky subprime mortgages,
and misleading insurance plans.” She called for
greater “regulation” by the government to counter the devious tactics
of “lenders [who] have deliberately built tricks and traps into some
credit products so they can ensnare families in a cycle of high-cost
debt.”
Advocating Government Bailouts of Private Citizens
In September 2008, as the U.S. faced its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Warren penned an article titled “Who Will Bail Out American Families?”
In that piece, she recommended that just as the federal government had
bailed out failing U.S. banks, the AIG insurance company, Fannie Mae,
and Freddie Mac, it should likewise bail out American families facing
bankruptcy. Depicting such people as innocent victims who had been
tricked by unscrupulous bankers, Warren wrote: “They are casualties of a
financial system that saw them not as customers, but as prey … a
financial system that has been devastated by mindless deregulation and
unchecked greed.”
Congressional Oversight Panel
In November 2008, Senator Harry Reid
appointed Warren to chair the Congressional Oversight Panel that
Congress had created to monitor the effectiveness of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program
(TARP), which was designed to bail out failing U.S. financial
institutions; Warren’s duty was to report regularly to Congress on
whether TARP funds were being used “in the best interest of the American people.”
Lamenting the Financial Distress Associated with Capitalism
In 2009 Warren co-wrote “The Increasing Vulnerability of Older Americans: Evidence From the Bankruptcy Court.”
Asserting that “the economic news for seniors is consistently grim,”
this article stated that “age is increasingly associated with financial
distress and with seeking protection from creditors through the
bankruptcy courts.” According to the authors, since 1991 “Americans age
fifty-five or older have experienced the sharpest increase in bankruptcy
filings,” and “the rate of bankruptcy filings among those ages
sixty-five and older has more than doubled.” Also in 2009, Warren co-authored an article
asserting that some 62.1% of all U.S. bankruptcies were the result of
medical expenses that people could not afford – supposedly a 49.6% rise
over 2001 bankruptcies due to medical expenses. Emphasizing that few
Americans were immune from the possibility of becoming insolvent, the
authors noted that “most medical debtors were well educated, owned
homes, and had middle-class occupations”; moreover, “three quarters had
health insurance.” Megan McArdle, the business and economics editor for The Atlantic, subsequently pointed out that this study was statistically flawed, and that no rise in medical-related bankruptcies had in fact occurred. In 2009 Warren appeared in Michael Moore‘s anti-capitalist film titled Capitalism: A Love Story. In a taped interview,
the filmmaker told Warren that “capitalism in and of itself, at least
the capitalism we know now, is immoral, it’s not democratic, and worst
of all, it doesn’t work…” Warren did not disagree, replying: “But we
made up these rules, and the rules are of men, of people. We pick what
the rules are. The rules have not been written for ordinary families,
for the people who actually do the work. We have to rewrite those
rules.” When Moore then blamed the greed of “corporate America” for
allegedly having tricked people “into these adjustable rate mortgages
[which] they may not be able to pay … back,” Warren said:
“Its a big part of what happened, and then just layer in on top of
that: ‘Can we sell them more credit cards that are loaded with tricks
and traps?’”
Lucrative Personal-Injury Lawsuits
In September 2009, Warren worked as a consultant for Travelers Insurance in the Supreme Court case Travelers Indemnity Co. v.Bailey.
In that case, Travelers won permanent immunity from all personal-injury
lawsuits related to its bankrupt former client, the
asbestos-manufacturing Johns Manville Corporation. Records show that
Travelers had been aware of the dangers of asbestos for decades, but had
misled the public about those dangers. In a Supreme Court brief, Warren
criticized the “enterprising plaintiffs’ lawyers” who represented
asbestos victims. She received more than $200,000 in legal fees for her services.
Warren’s Growing Influence
Warren was named one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World” in 2009 and 2010.
Portraying Financial Institutions & the U.S. Economy As Crooked
In March 2010, Warren addressed a conference that also featured billionaire financier George Soros
as a guest speaker. In her talk, Warren emphasized the need to shorten
and simplify such documents as credit-card, mortgage, and car-loan
agreements – so that people could no longer be “tricked and trapped into
paying what [they] didn’t bargain for.” In July 2010, Warren spoke
at an East Hampton, New York event on the topic of “Restoring the
Integrity of the U.S. Financial Markets.” Fellow panelists included
George Soros and Van Jones. That same month, Warren spoke at a Netroots Nation conference on the topic of “Building a Progressive Economic Vision.”
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Between 2007 and 2010, Warren’s idea of establishing a federal agency
to protect financial-product consumers found considerable support in
Congress and culminated in a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
being incorporated into a financial regulatory reform bill that was
passed in summer 2010. In the summer of that year, Senator Tom Harkin
circulated a petition advocating that Warren be named as director of
the new CFPB. Warren was likewise endorsed for that position by
Congressman Barney Frank, Democrat Senator Al Franken, the socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, SEIU president Andrew Stern, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, and the activist organization MoveOn. In July 2010, Warren singled out Rep. Barney Frank
as the man who “deserves as much credit as anyone on this planet for
keeping this Consumer Protection Financial Bureau [sic] and making it
strong.” On September 17, 2010, President Barack Obamaappointed Warren to be his special assistant
in charge of organizing and establishing the CFPB; in this role, Warren
would also serve as a special advisor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Senate approval was not needed for Warren’s appointment, though it
would have been required if Obama had named her to be CFPB’s director;
Obama was aware that the Senate was unlikely to have confirmed Warren
for that post. Following Warren’s appointment, Republican Congressmen
Darrel Issa (CA) and Spencer Bachus (AL) sent a letter to the White
House requesting more information about what they called the “unusual
arrangement” that was “undermining congressional oversight” over
presidential appointments. (Notably, CFPB went on to become a haven for
highly-paid federal workers. As of January 2017, some 449 CFPB employees
were earning at least $100,000 per year, and 228 were getting more than $200,000 annualy.)
Running For Senate
On September 14, 2011, Warren announced that she would be running (in
2012) for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat which, at that time, was
held by Republican Scott Brown. While campaigning that same month,
Warren stated (click here for video) that the government and the public sector play a vital role in wealth creation:
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his
own—nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to
be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us
paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were
safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces [sic] that
the rest of us paid for…. Now look, you built a factory and it turned
into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless—keep a big hunk of
it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of
that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Claiming a Connection to the Occupy Wall Street Movement
In October 2011, Warren — while enjoying a $429,000 Harvard salary and residing in a $5 million mansion — expressed support for the anti-capitalism rallies which were staged in cities across the United States by Occupy Wall Street and other activist groups. “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” she said in an interview with The Daily Beast. “I support what they do.” To view a list of additional noteworthy individuals and organizations that endorsed the movement, click here.
Warren’s “Native American” Heritage Resurfaces in Controversy
In April 2012, Warren became embroiled in controversy when the Boston Herald
reported that during the 1990s, administrators at Harvard Law School
had “prominently touted Warren’s Native American background … in an
effort to bolster their diversity hiring record in the ’90s as the
school came under heavy fire for a faculty that was then predominantly
white and male.” When the media subsequently asked Warren’s Senate
campaign for proof of the candidate’s tribal heritage, the campaign
initially denied
that Warren had ever boasted about it. Warren herself suggested that
even if she were unable to produce documentation of a such a heritage,
her family “lore” backed up her claim. “Being Native American has been part of my story I guess since the day I was born,” said
Warren. “These are my family stories, I have lived in a family that has
talked about Native American[s] and talked about tribes since I was a
little girl.” Speaking to a reporter on a local news station in Boston,
Warren cited her the “high cheekbones” of her “papaw” (grandfather) as further evidence of her Native American lineage. Said
Warren soon thereafter: “I listed myself [as a minority] in the
[professional law-school] directory [from 1986-1995] in the hopes that
it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something
that might happen with people who are like I am.” On May 1, 2012, it was reported that Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes had discovered that one of Warren’s great-great uncles had made a notation
on his own marriage license indicating that his mother (Warren’s
great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford) was a
Cherokee. If that notation (which was not part of the official license)
was accurate, it would make Warren 1/32 Cherokee. But in mid-May 2012,
it was learned that the document bearing the aforementioned notation was
merely an application for a marriage license, not the license itself. Further, census records list O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford as “white,” and Warren’s family is not listed in the Cherokee registry. Notwithstanding the evidence that Warren’s Cherokee heritage claims were false, Warren repeated her claim in A Fighting Chance, a new book that she released in April 2014. In response to this, the aforementioned Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes
wrote in a blog post: “She [Warren] could have used her new book to
acknowledge the truth and apologize for her blatant disrespect of
minorities, but instead, she’s continued to perpetuate the lie and
attempted to portray herself as a victim.” In that same post, Barnes then cited
the following excerpt from Warren’s book: “What really threw me,
though, were the constant attacks from the other side. I would almost
persuade myself that I was starting to get the hang of full-throttle
campaigning and then — bam! Out of left field, the state Republican
Party, or the [Scott] Brown campaign, or some blogger would launch a
rocket at me.” To that, Barnes wrote:
“Doing the research, finding the facts and sharing the
truth about someone is not an attack. If people were launching rockets,
it is because Warren gave them a big target. Research was done to
determine if she had Cherokee ancestry. She didn’t have any. That is not
an opinion. It is a sound conclusion based on a preponderance of
evidence found in historical documents. No one had any control over the
lies told except Elizabeth Warren. She had control over it when she
opened her mouth and told the story. She also had control when she
repeatedly defended her story, despite the overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. If Elizabeth Warren was a victim, she was only a victim of her
own arrogance and dishonesty. If she felt hurt and angry over what
happened, she has no one to blame but herself. She could have, should
have, just told the truth. She chose not to do that. I don’t feel sorry
for her.”
In March 2018, Warren was interviewed
on NBC’s “Meet the Press with Chuck Todd,” where she was asked whether
she would consider taking an easily accessible DNA test to
address critics who had questioned her purported Native American
heritage. But Warren did not answer the question, instead telling a
story about how her mother and father had met and married as
teenagers over the bitter objections of her father’s family, which
opposed the couple’s union because the young woman was part Native
American. “That’s the story that my brothers and I all learned from our
Mom and our Dad, from our grandparents and all of our aunts and uncles.
It’s a part of me, and nobody is going to take that part of me away —
not ever,” said Warren. Todd, in response, reiterated his question, to
which Warren replied: “I do know. I know who I am. And never used it for
anything, never got any benefit from it anywhere.” For a timeline of events regarding Warren’s claims of Native American heritage, click here. In October 2018, Warren shared with the Boston Globe
the results of a DNA test conducted upon her by Stanford University
researcher Carlos D. Bustamante. In a summary of his findings,
Bustamante wrote: “The results strongly support the existence of an
unadmixed Native American ancestor … in the range of 6-10 generations
ago.” This means that Warren’s ancestry is somewhere
between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American – i.e., between .09
percent and 1.6 percent Native American. The average European-American,
meanwhile, has 0.18 percent Native American DNA. The Globe noted,
moreover, that “because Native American leaders have asked tribal
members not to participate in genetic databases,” there is no Native
American DNA available for genetic testing. “To make up for the dearth
of Native American DNA,” the paper reported, “Bustamante used samples
from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American. That’s
because scientists believe that the groups Americans refer to as Native
American came to this land via the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago
and settled in what’s now America but also migrated further south.” Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr. issued the following statement vis-a-vis Warren’s DNA test results:
“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship.
Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors
were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set
their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be
used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is
not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to
any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even
vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests
and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal
governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and
whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests
with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
Addressing the DNC
On September 5, 2012, Warren spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Not Licensed to Practice Law in Massachusetts
In a September 24, 2012 interview with Boston’s 96.9 FM radio program Jim and Margery,
Warren, who had provided paid legal services for many clients during
the preceding decade—including the Simpson, Thacher, and Bartlett law
firm that paid her $212,000
and listed her as “of counsel” in the 2009 brief they submitted to the
Supreme Court on behalf of their client, Travelers Insurance—admitted
that she has never been licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.
According to LegalInsurrection.com:
“[T]here are at least two provisions of Massachusetts law
Warren may have violated. First, on a regular and continuing basis she
used her Cambridge office for the practice of law without being licensed
in Massachusetts. Second, in addition to operating an office for the
practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts, Warren actually
practiced law in Massachusetts without being licensed.”
Senator Warren
In November 2012 Warren was elected to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate.
Positions on Minimum Wage, Social Security, & College Loans
In March 2013 Warren suggested
raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $22 per hour: “If we started in
1960, and we said [that] as productivity goes up … then the minimum wage
was going to go up the same … if that were the case, the minimum wage
today would be about $22 an hour.” “What happened to the other $14.75?”
she asked. “It sure didn’t go to the worker.” In addition to a minimum-wage hike, Warren also favored an increase
in Social Security benefits to retirees, notwithstanding the fact that
with a rapidly rising number of baby boomers retiring, the Social
Security program itself was headed inexorably toward fiscal collapse. As a December 2013 Wall Street Journal report explained:
“Undeterred by this undebatable solvency crisis, Sen.
Warren wants to increase benefits to all seniors, including
billionaires, and to pay for them by increasing taxes on working people
and their employers. Her approach requires a $750 billion tax hike over
the next 10 years that hits mostly Millennials and Gen Xers, plus
another $750 billion tax on the businesses that employ them.
In an April 2014 interview with The Daily Show host Jon Stewart, Warren cited
the escalating cost of borrowing money for college as an example of how
America has changed in recent times: “That’s what’s fundamentally
changed. Look, it’s tough out there. It really is a rigged game, and
it’s set up now over and over and over … that the rich get richer and
the powerful get more powerful. They’ve got all the advantages of
concentrated money and concentrated power.” The key to addressing this problem, said
Warren, is to get involved in politics: “All we got on the other side,
is we got our voices and we got our votes, and if we get out there and
make something out of them, that’s how we make a difference.”
Claiming Sexism in the Senate
In an October 2014 interview
with CNN, Warren was asked whether she felt that her male colleagues in
the U.S. Senate sometimes treated her in a disrespectful or sexist
manner because she was a woman. She answered curtly, “Yes.” When asked
if she could elaborate, Warren said, “Nope. Nope. I’ve said all I’m
gonna say.” The interviewer then asked whether the senator found the
disparate treatment “surprising.” Warren sighed audibly and then
replied: “Not really. I wish it were. But it’s hard to change these big,
male-dominated institutions. What I am very happy about is that there
are now enough women in the United States Senate to begin to change that
place, and I think that’s just powerfully important…. You know, others
have said it before me. If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’re
probably on the menu. And so it is important that we have women in the
United States Senate, strong women, and women who are there to help
advance an agenda that is important to women.”
Ethics Violation
In a January 2017 op-ed which she wrote for the Washington Post, Warren said “it
is critical that each nominee [for newly elected President Donald
Trump’s cabinet] follows basic ethics rules to ensure that they will act
for the benefit of all the American people.” Emphasizing that nominees
with “complex financial histories” must be “forthcoming and
transparent,” she argued that financial disclosures were especially
vital because they might “reveal potentially damaging information that
may undermine fitness to serve.” A few days later, the Washington Free Beacon reported:
“Warren, meanwhile, continues to skirt congressional
ethics laws by failing to include a $1.3 million line of credit against
her Cambridge, Massachusetts home on financial disclosure forms. The
line of credit was extended to Warren and her husband Bruce Mann in 2007
through financial giant Bank of America. It was first noted by the Boston Herald after
Warren failed to included the line of credit as a liability on her
2014 financial disclosure filing. It was also absent from her
2015 filing. “An aide for Warren, who is worth millions, defended the omission,
stating at the time that a home equity line of credit like the one that
Warren received from Bank of America doesn’t have the same reporting
requirements as a typical home mortgage, which would have to be
reported. “The STOCK Act, which was signed into law in 2012, mandated that all
members of Congress disclose details of any mortgages on their personal
residences in their annual filings. The legislation, however, does not
mention home equity lines of credit, which banks offer as alternatives
to a mortgage. The Warren aide said that the senator had yet to borrow
on the line of credit, which allowed her to leave it off disclosure
forms. The exact terms of Warren’s deal with Bank of America such as her
interest rate remain a mystery due to the lack of disclosure.”
Warren’s Hypocrisy on the “Gender Pay Gap”
Warren has long claimed — falsely and deceptively — that female
workers in the United States are paid considerably less than equally
qualified men who do the same work, and that the American workplace is
thus “rigged against women.” As the Washington Free Beacon reported on Wednesday, April 5, 2017: “Warren has used Equal Pay Day, which fell on April 4 this year, in years past as an opportunity to speak out on the gender pay gap. Last year she took to the Senate floor
to call Equal Pay Day a ‘national day of embarrassment’ and pledged to
continue her ‘fight’ until the pay gap was erased. She gave similar
statements on Equal Pay Day in 2015, 2014, and 2013, her first year in the Senate.” But as the Beacon further noted in its April 5 report, Warren now “failed to acknowledge Equal Pay Day for the first time in her Senate career after it was reported on Tuesday that women working in her Senate office earned just 71 percent of what was earned by men.”
Seeking to Punish a Conservative Broadcasting Group
In April 2018, Warren was one of 12 U.S. senators who sought to punish the Sinclair Broadcast Group –
widely perceived as a conservative media company – which (a) consisted
of 193 television stations and 614 channels in 89 markets nationwide,
and (b) had recently announced plans to
acquire the Tribune Media Company’s 42 TV stations in 33 markets, a
merger that, if completed, would extend Sinclair’s reach to 72% of all
American households. The twelve senators included Warren, Independent Bernie Sanders, and 10 other Democrats: Tammy Baldwin, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Maria Cantwell, Edward Markey, Jeff Merkley, Patty Murray, Tina Smith, Tom Udall, and Ron Wyden. In a letter to
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai, these
senators expressed concern over the fact that Sinclair had recently
aired an ad showing its various local anchors reading from a corporate scriptextolling
the virtue of “balanced journalism”; stating that “truth is neither
politically ‘left or right’”; emphasizing the importance of
a “commitment” to reporting that “seek[s] the truth and strive[s] to be
fair, balanced and factual”; criticizing “some members of the media” for
“us[ing] their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to
control ‘exactly what people think’”; and condemning “the troubling
trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country.” Viewing the Sinclair ad as an implicit defense of
President Donald Trump, who had long been under withering attack by
media outlets nationwide, the senators wrote in their letter: “We are concerned that
Sinclair is engaged in a systematic news distortion operation that
seeks to undermine freedom of the press and the robust localism and
diversity of viewpoint that is the foundation of our national
broadcasting laws.” “We have strong concerns,” they added,
“that Sinclair has violated the public interest obligation inherent in
holding broadcast licenses. Sinclair may have violated the FCC’s
longstanding policy against broadcast licensees deliberately distorting
news by staging, slanting, or falsifying information.” The senators
also demanded that the FCC put on hold its review of Sinclair’s potential merger with Tribune. In his response, Pai said he “must respectfully decline” the senators’ request “in light of my commitment to protecting the First Amendment and freedom of the press.” “I understand that
you disliked or disagreed with the content of particular broadcasts,”
he added, “but I can hardly think of an action more chilling of free
speech than the federal government investigating a broadcast station
because of disagreement with its news coverage or promotion of that
coverage.”
Claiming That the Criminal Justice System Is Racist
During a question-and-answer session hosted by Congressional Black Caucus chairman Cedric Richmond
at the historically black Dillard University in New Orleans, Warren
delivered what she called “the hard truth about our criminal justice
system: It’s racist … I mean front to back.” In the course of her
remarks, the senator cited such things as disproportionate arrests of
blacks for petty drug possession; an overburdened public defender
system; and state laws that sometimes bar convicted felons from voting
in political elections for the rest of their lives.
Reaction to a Murder Committed by Illegal Alien
In an August 2018 television interview
on CNN, Warren was asked to comment on the recent death of Mollie
Tibbetts, a 20-year-old student at the University of Iowa who had been
murdered by an illegal immigrant from Mexico. She replied:
“I’m so sorry for the family here, and I know this is
hard not only for the family but for the people in her community, the
people throughout Iowa. But one of the things we have to remember is we
need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real
problems are. Last month, I went down to the border, and I saw where
children had been taken away from their mothers. I met with those
mothers who had been lied to, who didn’t know where their children were,
who hadn’t had a chance to talk to their children. And there was no
plan for how they would be reunified with their children. I think we
need immigration laws that focus on people who pose a real threat. And I
don’t think mamas and babies are the place that we should be spending
our resources. Separating a mama from a baby does not make this country
safer.”
Ethics Violation
On October 29, 2018, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a non-partisan ethics watchdog group, filed a complaint with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics against Senator Warren and Senator Kamala Harris.
Said the FACT complaint: “Senators Warren and Harris both sent campaign
fundraising emails before the Senate vote on Supreme Court Justice
Brett Kavanaugh. Specifically, the campaign emails both stated Senators
Warren and Harris’s official role and positions on the ongoing
confirmation hearing and then made direct requests for campaign
donations with ‘DONATE NOW’ and ‘CONTRIBUTE’ buttons. Senate ethics laws
prohibit candidates from using the promise of official action or
legislative work in a direct ask for campaign cash.” “This is a clear
violation of the Senate Ethics rules which safeguard against the
appearance or actuality of elected officials ‘cashing in’ on their
official position for political purposes,” said FACT executive director
Kendra Arnold.
Announcing Her 2020 Presidential Campaign
On December 31, 2018, Warren announced that she planned to run for the office of U.S. President in 2020.
Proposing a Wealth Tax
On January 24, 2019, Warren’s presidential campaign announced
that Warren, if elected, planned to impose a 2 percent wealth tax on
the holdings of any Americans with assets worth more than $50 million,
and a 3 percent wealth tax on anyone whose assets are worth than $1
billion. Warren herself provided additional details in a series of
tweets:
“We need structural change. That’s why I’m proposing something brand
new – an annual tax on the wealth of the richest Americans. I’m calling
it the ‘Ultra-Millionaire Tax’ & it applies to that tippy top 0.1% –
those with a net worth of over $50M.”
“The rich & powerful run Washington. Here’s one benefit they
wrote for themselves: After making a killing from the economy they’ve
rigged, they don’t pay taxes on that accumulated wealth. It’s a system
that’s rigged for the top if I ever saw one.”
“The ultra-rich have rigged our economy & rigged our tax rules.
We need structural change. That’s why I’m proposing something brand-new:
An annual wealth tax on the tippy-top 0.1%. We’d get $3 trillion in new
revenue to invest in rebuilding the middle-class. Let’s make it
happen.”
That same day, Warren made the following remarks to MSNBC’s Chris Hayes:
“Look at it this way. For years now, for decades now, rich people
have gone to Washington and said, ‘just tilt the playing field in our
favor just a little bit.’ And then they come back and say, ’tilt it just
a little bit more.’ And the next year, ’tilt it just a little bit more,
just a little bit more, just a little bit more.’ Until today, in
America, the top 1/10th of one percent has amassed about as much wealth
as 90% of America.”
“[T]he way that this is written is to say is to say first all of
going to tax all your assets wherever located around the globe. So if
you were planning to move them to Switzerland or some island, doesn’t
make any difference. They are all going to be taxed. The second part of
it is we’re going to build right into the administration of this tax
that it has a very high rate of monitoring, of auditing. The rich people
on the ultra-millionaire tax. So we’re going to be out there counting
them and watching them. And the third part is once you identify these
assets, it’s actually not that complicated and hard because unlike some
other places that tried to build this one isn’t going to have a bunch of
exceptions. This one says all your assets wherever located and we’re
going to keep counting. And you’re going to have to to pay if you have
more than $50 million in assets. This is the ultrarich. You’re going to
have to pay 2% a year of that amount over $50 million.”
Warren Conflates the Threats Posed by White Nationalists, ISIS, and Al Qaeda
At a March 2019 town hall
meeting hosted by CNN in Jackson, Mississippi, Warren was asked: “Since
the election of Donald Trump, the number of hate crimes has increased
and white supremacists have become more emboldened online and in public.
What are your plans to unite the country?” She replied: “Oh, good.
Thank you for that question. You know, it starts with the fact that
we’ve got to recognize the threat posed by white nationalism. White
supremacists pose a threat to the United States like any other terrorist
group, like ISIS, like Al Qaeda.”
Blaming “Prejudice” for Blacks’ Worse Maternal Health Outcomes
At a “She the People Democratic Presidential Forum” in Texas in May
2019, a young woman who identified herself as a worker in the maternal
health field and a “proud member of the Black Lives [Matter] movement” asked
Warren what she would do, as president, to address the fact that “for
black women, the risk of death from pregnancy-related causes is three to
four times higher than for white women, and black women are twice as
likely to suffer from life-threatening pregnancy complications.” In
response, Warren said that how the federal government “treats its mamas
and its babies” is “ultimately about our values.” She added: “We have
failed our babies exactly in the way you talk about…. And the best
studies that I’m seeing put it down to just one thing — prejudice. That
doctors and nurses don’t hear African-American women’s medical issues
the same way that they hear the same things from white women. And we’ve
got to change that and we’ve got to change it fast because people’s
lives are at stake.”
Warren’s Voting Record
For an overview of Warren’s voting record on an array of key issues, click here.
Additional Information
For additional information on Elizabeth Warren, click here.
