LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Tulsi Gabbard: Let’s face it, Kamala Harris isn’t qualified to be commander-in-chief
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/allahpu ... snt-qualified-commander-chief/
Published: Jul 23, 2019
Author: Allahpundit
Post Date: 2019-07-23 18:03:54 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 4235
Comments: 13
Granted, longshot candidates tend to go after big-shot candidates in hopes of getting voters to notice them. But these aren’t business-as-usual criticisms. This is Gabbard essentially calling Harris a racial demagogue and now deeming her unfit to command the U.S. military. These are attack ads waiting to happen for the GOP in the general election if Harris is the nominee. There has to be something we don’t know yet that explains the surprising animosity. A Twitter pal suggested that she’s under deep cover, sabotaging the Democratic primary on behalf of Trump and his handler Putin. Ridiculous, bro. Everyone knows Tulsi’s a puppet of Assad, not Vlad. “I’ve seen the cost of war firsthand. I’ve experienced the consequences of what happens when we have presidents, as we have from both political parties in the White House, who lack experience, who lack that foreign policy understanding, who therefore fall under the influence of the foreign policy establishment, the military-industrial complex,” Gabbard continued. “This is what’s so dangerous. This is what we’ve seen occurring over time.” What jumps out there is the reference to temperament. It’s standard practice for candidates to question each other’s foreign policy experience; questioning their temperament is more personal, something you typically don’t hear unless a candidate is known to have a temper (a la McCain 2008) or prone to crankery (a la Trump 2016). Trump’s temperament was questioned repeatedly by his opponents, which is (a) understandable given what a loose cannon he is and (b) ironic considering that Trump has been more restrained militarily than some of the people who attacked him for his temperament likely would have been as president. But Trump was a sui generis candidate. Kamala Harris isn’t — she’s a U.S. senator who rose through the ranks in California, an establishment figure. People like that don’t typically get dinged on temperament grounds unless there’s an obvious reason. Is Gabbard maybe referring to her race-baiting exchange with Biden at the last debate, suggesting that Harris is too willing to fight dirty to be trusted? Or is she referring to her sporadic outbursts of autocratic ambition? If Congress won’t act, I will. — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) July 21, 2019 Or to something else? We’ll know next week. Remember, thanks to the luck of the draw, these two will be onstage together at the CNN debate. Exit quotation from Gabbard’s appearance yesterday on “The View”: “I think decriminalizing [illegal immigration] could lead to open borders. We need safe, secure borders in this country.” Maybe she *is* a Trump plant. Via the Free Beacon, I stand corrected. The best mystery on the news wires right now isn’t why Mike Pence’s trip to New Hampshire was canceled or how a fresh In-n-Out burger ended up on a street 1,500 miles away from the nearest restaurant. The best mystery is why Tulsi Gabbard seems to have it in for Kamala Harris. This is the second time in two weeks that she’s hit Harris surprisingly hard, first accusing her of acting in bad faith in challenging Joe Biden on busing and now claiming that she lacks the experience needed to be commander-in-chief. “I think one of the things I’m most concerned with is Kamala Harris is not qualified to serve as commander in chief, and I can say this from a personal perspective as a soldier. She’s got no background or experience in foreign policy and she lacks the temperament that is necessary for a commander in chief,” Gabbard said. As president, I’ll give Congress 100 days to send legislation to my desk to stop Big Pharma from raking in massive profits at the expense of Americans.
Poster Comment:
Gabbard seems to be creating her own brand and her own political lane in the primary race. There may not be enough of those voters out there for her to win, at least in the early primary states. New Hampshire would be her best shot at a win using this messaging.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
The best mystery is why Tulsi Gabbard seems to have it in for Kamala Harris.
Because Humpin' Harris is literally a political whore.
Any hard questions out there that need answers?
#2. To: Hank Rearden (#1) (Edited)
Because Humpin' Harris is literally a political whore.
I keep hoping in the middle of one of these debates, some other candidate will turn to her and say something like, "At least I didn't get my start in politics by spreading my legs for a pig like Willy Brown, the way you did, Kamala."
Or: "As we all know, you got your start in politics by letting Willy Brown use you like a whore. Did you get any of your other political jobs like California attorney general or U.S. senator by sleeping with any other scummy men like Willy Brown?"
It would be epic.
Really, how does a woman who slept her way to the top receive any respect at all in a presidential race, even in the Donkey party?
#3. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Gabbard isn't qualified to change a diaper let alone be President She is a bad joke. Go to hell Gabbard.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Gabbard isn't qualified to change a diaper let alone be President She is a bad joke. Go to hell Gabbard.
I think Gabbard may be running for VP. Or to set herself up for a Senate run or a serious run as prez in 2024 or 2028.
She's demonstrating nicely that she can be a VP attack dog by savaging Harris. And she might land a VP spot for Biden or Sanders, probably not for Warren (not gonna be the first two-woman ticket). So she takes out Harris, maybe helps to take out Warren too, well...she's looking not too bad as a female VP pick for whichever Old White Dude becomes the nominee.
We can pretty much assume the Dems will have a male nominee and that the VP pick will be a female. I think Gabbard wants to be that VP pick in 2020.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#2)
Really, how does a woman who slept her way to the top receive any respect at all in a presidential race, even in the Donkey party?
Good heavens! Can you be suggesting that these Democrat debates are just one big donkey show?
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
Good heavens! Can you be suggesting that these Democrat debates are just one big donkey show?
I hope you can forgive me. : )
I'll try harder. I promise.
#7. To: A K A Stone, loves Willy Brown sluts (#3)
Tulsi Gabbard is 1000X better than Kaka Harris! Remove "probation" = more info.
Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values
#8. To: Hank Rearden (#1)
How can a person born of non-citizens be elected President? This means that all of the children born of Chinese parents who stopped in JUST for the event will also be eligible someday.
THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
#9. To: jeremiad, Hank Rearden (#8)
How can a person born of non-citizens be elected President? This means that all of the children born of Chinese parents who stopped in JUST for the event will also be eligible someday.
Easily, if they get the votes. If born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, a child is a natural born citizen, and no reference is made to the status of the parents.
William Arthur, the Irish father of Chester Arthur, became a citizen 14 years after Chester Arthur was born. Chester Arthur's mother, Malvina Stone Arthur was citizen. Chester Arthur was a natural born U.S. citizen.
Tulsi Gabbard was born in American Samoa. The fact of birth in American Samoa makes one a national, but not a citizen, of the United States. However, Tulsi Gabbard's parents were citizens, and Gabbard acquired citizenship at birth in accordance with the federal law applicable at the time of her birth.
Kamala Harris was born in California. It does not matter where her parents were born. They could have been illegal aliens when she was born and that wouldn't matter either.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled specifically that Chinese, and everyone else born in the United States, acquired citizenship at birth, except only for those who enjoyed diplomatic immunity from U.S. jurisdiction.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At 694:
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
At 696:
But, as already observed, it is impossible to attribute to the words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," that is to say, of the United States, at the beginning a less comprehensive meaning than to the words "within its jurisdiction," that is, of the State, at the end of the same section; or to hold that persons, who are indisputably "within the jurisdiction" of the State, are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Nation.It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution, and their children "born in the United States" cannot be less "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
At 698-99:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as originally framed by the House of Representatives, lacked the opening sentence. When it came before the Senate in May, 1866, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, moved to amend by prefixing the sentence in its present form (less the words "or naturalized"), and reading,"All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State herein they reside."
Mr. Cowan objected upon the ground that the Mongolian race ought to be excluded, and said:
"Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? . . . I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that, within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit."
Mr. Conness, of California, replied:
"The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this Constitutional Amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st sess. pt. 4, pp. 2890-2892. It does not appear to have been suggested in either House of Congress that children born in the United States of Chinese parents would not come within the terms and effect of the leading sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked.
At 702:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
"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,"contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
At 704:
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.
At 705:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
At last count, court actions by birthers resulted in a record of futility of 0-226, with all cases dismissed in the pre-trial stage.
#10. To: nolu chan (#9)
You have spoken truly. Born a citisen, you're a citisen.
#11. To: Hondo68 (#7)
Tulsi Gabbard is 1000X
Maybe a tiny bit better.
#12. To: A K A Stone, Great Judicial Temperament, RBG replacenent, SCOTUS (#11)
Appoint this kid to replace RBG on SCOTUS
Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values
#13. To: Tooconservative (#2)
Really, how does a woman who slept her way to the top receive any respect at all in a presidential race, even in the Donkey party?
Ya know, the idiot party with stick-up-their-ass uptight leftist nasty angry womyn wouldn't let her get past first base, but "Double Standard" is that shitty little party of parasites' middle name.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]