You should Know that Nimrata Randhawa AKA "NIKKI HALEY" IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.. YET SHE IS RUNNING SHAMELESLY FOR PRESIDENT

 

Neither of Haley’s parents was a citizen of the United States when she was born,”  “So she can never hold the office of president or the office of vice president in the United States.”
She was born a Sikh and only converted to Methodist after marrying her White Husband and started running for public office. (Convenient since Haley grew up Sikh, in a place where both the landscape and the culture were dominated by evangelical Christian megachurches.)

Wait … what? Nothing wrong in being a proud daughter of Indian Parents. Nothing wrong at all. BUT SINCE THE INDIAN PARENTS WERE NOT CITIZENS WHEN SHE WAS BORN SHE DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A 'NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" SHE QUALIFIES AS A US CITIZEN BY BIRTH BASED ON THE 14th AMENDMENT. AN ANCHOR BABY. 

Haley’s parents did not apply for U.S. citizenship until the fall of 1977 – almost seven years after she was born – the former ambassador is not a “natural born citizen” per the terms of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

“While we support the endeavors of the Nikki Haley, the facts is that she could never get on the ballot for president or vice president of the United States due to Constitutional disqualification.

Yes Kamala Harris and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindall are all ineligible the same way.

( Some of you will argue so was Obama and you would be wrong. Hussein Obama Senior was NOT the "Real father" of Barrack ! He was a Cuckold set up to mask the true identity of the Communist Father. Stanley Dunham ( Hussein's Mother) was a porn model for a Black Communist living in Hawaii called Frank Marshal Davis who was a very good friend of Valerie Jarret's Father. 

As much as I hate the Islamic PIG HUSSEIN OBAMA... Even though he had a Fake Birth Certificate and was illegally placed in the President's seat against a Fucking asshole called John McCain.. he was secretly a US CITIZEN born in Kenya!!

Some of you will argue so was Obama was not a citizen and you would be wrong. Hussein Obama Senior was NOT the real father of Barrack ! He was a "Cuckold" set up to mask the true identity of the Father Frank Marshal Davis.

Stanley Dunham was a porn model for a Black Communist in Hawaii called Frank Marshal Davis who was a very good friend of Valerie Jarret's Father.

As much as I hated Hussein.. he had a secret "Out" He is as legal as John McCain was. Both were Children born outside the United States to Citizen parents. McCain born in Panama to Citizen parents and Hussein in Kenya. See his Mother was Stanley Dunham and his REAL FATHER was Frank Marshal Davis a US Citizen Communist who lived in Hawaii. Look it up!

Click the links below

The photos were apparently taken at Frank Marshall Davis’s home in Honolulu. The photos reveal an intimate relationship between Obama’s mother and his childhood mentor. 
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2012/06/20/oh-my-ann-dunham-pictures-surface-president-barack-obamas-mom/

Barack Hussien Obama’s real name is in fact Barry Davis.  He was conceived when his atheist White mother was only 17 years old while having an adulterous affair with hatefully-racist, Black Communist activist Frank Marshall Davis of Chicago.

The Intimate Ann Dunham Frank Marshall Davis Relationship

More Details.

The Intimate Ann Dunham -
Frank Marshall Davis Relationship  He was Obama's real father. 

Frank Marshall Davis Bio

Frank Marshall Davis is Hussein's real father.  In the end in spite of the fake Birth Certificate and Passport and even the fraudulent selective service application that I have written about... Obama was an anti American asshole but a Citizen! )

**********************************************************************

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the amendment clearly states.  CITIZENS YES NATUTRAL BORN CITIZEN NO! THEY ARE WHAT WE CALL "ANCHOR BABIES"!

Haley was born as Nimrata Randhawa in Bamberg, South Carolina on January 20, 1972. Therefore, she is a citizen of the United States by right of birth – notwithstanding the citizenship status of her parents.

The attempt to allow Naturalized Citizens to run for and hold the position of President or Vice President has been argued and denied many times. 

SEE THIS GUY BELOW? HEARD OF HIM ? HE IS ANWAR AL-AWLAKI.  He was born in the US just like Nikki Haley was. Foreign Parents born in the US. Except he became a Terrorist. According to the logic used by the lefts and stupid Conservatives... he too could run for PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!

Yes people if it were truly permitted then Yemeni Anwar Al-Awlaki who was born in 1971 in New Mexico, where his Yemeni-born father was attending school and was in the US with his Yemeni wife was also eligible like Nikki Haley and Kamala Harris to be President of the USA,  The Mother and Father lived with him in the US until 1978. He left and came Back to the U.S. in 1991 to attend college in Colorado and remained here till he left for Yemen in the 2004. He was a Birthright US CITIZEN. Anyone who argues that Kamala Harris and Nikki Haley and the others I mention can be President should tell me they would be OK with Al Awlaki (who has since been killed by drone strike for being a terrorist) being President too? What's the freaking difference between Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and others and Terrorist Al Awlaki when it comes to status of immigration?

Read up about him>> 

Anwar al-Awlaki obituary Yemeni-American al-Qaida propagandist and terrorist leader

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In 2003 Congress tried to amend the Constitutional Law!

H.J.Res.67 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.

108th Congress (2003-2004)  

https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-joint-resolution/67/text

It has not passed. So if Congress has not passed the law it cannot the Law! So with Kamala Harris because of the cowardice of the law makers and the Courts of Law they looked the other way and waived that requirement. I believe that if challenged we could win.

READ UNDERSTAND AND SHARE! MORE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THIS AND SHARE IT WITH LAW MAKERS

Nikki Haley, Kamala Harris, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindall Ted Cruz are all NOT eligible to serve as President or Vice President. 

Nikki Haley 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 like I said Obama was most likely the bastard son of Frank Marshal Davis and Stanley Dunham  both US Citizens long before he was born. 

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.
.... and please do NOT give me the "Wong Kim Ark" argument. The Supreme Court can rule on one case and make the term "Natural Born Citizen" vague for one case but they cannot Amend the Constitution. Read Article 5 of the Constitution.

Amending the Constitution requires a process. It needs 2/3 of the 50 States to vote in favor of the amendment. ( men in Black robes who are appointed for life do not make laws for the Country Period!)

Here is the Link..  Click on it!

Constitutional Amendment Process

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.

  Preamble!The left has gotten the American people to reject one of the most valuable safeguards bequeathed to us by the founders.
The natural born citizen clause served us well until we allowed it to be ignored.

It does not matter if Nikki Haley was born in the US if at the time of her birth her parents were foreign nationals just like Kamala Harris.

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.

Who believes they would have thought the recently deceased King of Thailand was eligible to be President?
He was born in Cambridge MA.
Usurpation Day, January 20, 2009, happened with the complete cooperation of both parties.
They want the Constitution changed without the hassle of amending the Constitution.
Confuse people about the clear meaning of a three word phrase and voila, every anchor baby and Winston Churchill is eligible.
The bench was the reason the GOP went along with the fig leaf resolution for McCain that was used by the Democrats as cover for Obama.
Jindal, Rubio, Haley, George P. Bush and Cruz were all up and comers and the future of the party and ineligible.

See my blog how Nancy Pelosi Forged the Hawaii Document that put Obama on the Ballot

HOW OBAMA & NANCY PELOSI STOLE THE ELECTIONS IN 2008 BY FORGING THE HAWAII CERTIFICATION DOCUMENTS FOR OBAMA. ( FULL DETAILED EXPOSE. PLEASE READ AND SHARE ) ITS NEVER TOO LATE TO EXPOSE THE FACTS.

ELECTIONS?? ITS A SCAM NOW... ITS ALL BEEN RIGGED.
Stalin said it best: "It does not matter who votes in the election.. .. It matters who counts the VOTES!!!"

Click here for that detail https://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-obama-nancy-pelosi-scam-detailed.html

Let me explain as simply as I can!

FIRST YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" AND A "NATURALIZED CITIZEN"
 ( Please link to the blue links for reference articles!)  https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/naturalized-citizen/

Some other politicians including Kamala Harris (D) in the two major political parties who have been mentioned for election to high national political office, Harris and now Nikki Haley are poised to be president by default when "Biden the Demented" keels over!  They are 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.

For more information about the ‘natural born Citizen’ term read this White Paper essay – The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How the Natural Born Citizen Term was Put Into Our U.S. Constitution as to eligibility for the office of the President of the United States.

Read the following essays regarding the presidential eligibility term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution:
1.  Natural born Citizen and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ 

2.  Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution – The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same | by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret):  http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

3.  U.S. Constitution Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html … or …  http://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

Cannot be President and Commander In Chief

Nikki Haley is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen‘ of USA – NOT Eligible to be President and Commander-in-Chief of Our Military per U.S. Constitution

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 requirement.

SO YOU SEE?

WANT TO IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION AGAIN ?

BREAD AND CIRCUSES HAS NOW EVOLVED INTO BEER AND CHIPS.. We are watching the downfall of America!

 

Are we reliving history? Are we recreating and reliving a part of Roman history that led to its downfall?

Does anyone remember the above phrase, Bread and Circuses, from high school history class? Or from a movie, perhaps “Gladiator”? When people refer to this today, they are criticizing ancient Rome for the way its Emperors, in the later stages of the Empire, used both free bread (and other food) and free entertainment to placate the large number of people who were otherwise poorly served by their government. They literally bought off “the masses” with free bread and entertainment at the Coliseum; entertainment that was called the circus.

The criticism points out that the Roman government paid for short-term satisfaction while intentionally ignoring the long-term needs and best interests of its citizens. Why would a government do that? Simple; it is cheap, easy, results in applause and adulation, and works long enough for those currently in power not to have to deal with the more difficult, long-term solutions. (Does anyone know how to translate “kicking the can down the road” into Latin?)
How did those large numbers of citizens end up losing both of those key characteristics?
How did they put themselves in a position where obvious bribes would work?
Did they get soft when life got easier as Rome prospered?
Did the government aid the softening with earlier, less grand versions of free bread and lavish, also free, entertainment?

As time went along, the government noticed that it had to do things like give away more bread to more people. And the circuses had to become more spectacular and more bloody. Bigger loaves of bread along with more types of more food, and more gory deaths to keep the masses in line. And to keep cheering the government.

History shows that as the Roman Empire grew softer, the enemies on her borders grew bolder. Rome eventually collapsed as much from the weight of its own indolence as from the might of her enemies.

Let’s come back from history to today.

Are there any parallels today? Are we on a similar slippery slope? Is our government buying off its citizens, with its own version of bread and entertainment?

Bread is as necessary to sustain life today as it was then. Entertainment, the Coliseum and Football, adds a lot to the quality of life–and to one’s ability to be productive if indulged in a disciplined way. What is the proper role of government in supplying those needs? And how do we know when government exceeds that proper role purely in pursuit of the support of the populace? Support, which in Rome was applause and cheering; today it is applause and voting and distracting the useful idiots away from the real issues of the day.

At some point in our conversation, someone will point out that we and our government have an obligation to help “those who deserve it” as argued in FDR’s New Deal. Have we now moved to giving help to everyone because it is their right, deserving or not?

Decades ago, the American government provided nothing but protection and infrastructure – and precious little of that. Social Security was introduced under President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935. United States Government-backed student loans were first offered in the 1950s under the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). Food Stamps in 1964. Assistance to single-parent families, supplemental nutrition programs, rent assistance (including some free housing), healthcare, and other benefits were added at different times. And they are all growing faster than the population.

Today, there is almost a race amongst the presidential primary candidates to see who can offer more than the other. The first speaker does not stand much of a chance. For example, “I love the planet so much that I want to spend $3 trillion to save it.” The next candidate responds, “I love the planet more than you do. I want to spend $5 trillion to save it.” And so forth, and so on. Perhaps the debate moderator should be replaced with an auctioneer.

Are we on the right path, with our governments at all levels being content with their proper roles, staying in their lanes? Try this on for a way to answer: Governments should be asked to do only what they are uniquely well qualified to do. Anything else should be left to those entities that are better qualified for the task at hand.

We have gone from a de minimis government about a hundred years ago, to one that is talking about providing just about everything; telling us what we need, and providing it, and telling us what we don’t need, and banning it. Are we paying attention? Or are we like the frog in the boiling water? Remember that experiment? If you drop a frog into boiling water, he jumps out to save himself. If you put a frog into a pot of cool water and heat it slowly to the boiling point, the frog will just sit there and die.

Are we on the right path, a path that we recognize and support, or are we the frog?

RIBBIT RIBBIT

What a shame