In America today, a person asking questions which have nothing to do with one’s race (and everything to do with facts) tends to wind up being called a “racist” by the PC crowd. This was seen vividly in the case of President Obama. For example, there are still those who wonder how a font type that was not invented yet at the time of his birth, wound up on his supposed “real” birth certificate. Even though that question in no way has anything to do with his race, and everything to do with his eligibility, the accusations of bigotry were still heard.
Well, now it may be happening yet again.
Noted author Douglas V. Gibbs writes that, in the case of Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), “her father arrived from Jamaica in 1961—mother from India arrived in 1960. Neither parent was a legal resident for 5 years prior to Harris’s birth, a requirement for naturalization. Kamala was raised in Canada. If her parents were not eligible, yet, to be American citizens by the time of Kamala’s birth, then that means neither of Kamala’s parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of her birth. Therefore, if that is true, Harris is not eligible to run for President of the United States.”
There will certainly be some, particularly on the left side of the political spectrum, who will argue once again that simply noticing facts and calling them out is “racist.” The attempt won’t be to deflect any real racism, however, it will only be about furthering their agenda. If Kamala was someone on the right, needless to say the left would do everything possible to stop such a person’s assent. Of this there is little question.
So, since the matter is not about race, just why does it matter where her parents were born?
The Constitution is set up as it is to ensure that foreign interests or assets are not easily able to bring about an agenda harmful to the Unites States, and into the highest seat in the land. When one considers that Obama seemed to have a great numbers of stances which were outright destructive to the Constitution and the American way of life, questions regarding citizenship status at birth could turn out to be the most vital of all conversations to have.
One may be persuaded to argue that Obama is long, long gone, and this is quite true.
However, the same concerns certainly apply to Ms. Harris, perhaps to even greater degree! Her platform is infested with ideas and proposals that are nothing short of a continuation of Obama’s seemingly anti-America/pro-globalist stances. So, once again, there is ample reason to wonder if Harris is legally eligible to run, a question which has nothing to do with her skin tone.
The other issue that keeps coming up in relation to the Senator from California is one of a moral issue, at least as it is being spun. Kamala Harris had a romantic relationship with Willie Brown (D-CA) and, according to Brown himself in U.S.A. Today, he “appointed her to posts.”
Whenever a Harris supporter tells the story, the narrative tends to gravitate towards the belief that whoever Harris chooses to date is a matter best left to her and her lover. While this is certainly true, Brown was married at the time. Brown’s wife is said to have been “estranged” from him, so to be honest, it wasn’t really cheating or something that was hidden from the public.
However, the fact the he was appointing people who he was romantic with could put both Brown and Harris under the microscope. This could be considered plain old “crony capitalism”; or a “good ol’ boy” system which is rightfully detested by all parties, but especially by Democrats. Therefore, while what is done in one’s bedroom should stay in one’s bedroom and not affect their career, if the affair was leverage or a stepping stone, and if she got further in her career than others due to her relationship with Brown, then the affair does matter.
In other words, Brown’s bragging about how he was at the forefront and helm of Harris’s rise to power may be a factor that could help lead to her potential downfall.
In closing, it is interesting to note that the Democrats and those on the left often have a tendency to accuse President Trump of being “divisive.” Perhaps, as many people choose to see it, some of what he has said in certain areas may not have been the most uniting of statements. That being said, Harris has been far more divisive than Mr. Trump. The views that she holds offer very little to anyone who supports the Constitution, the American way of life, the Bill Of Rights, or anything similar. For an example, one need only look at the positions she’s taken on the trade war, consistently coming down on China’s side.
Therefore, not only should those who cherish liberty continue to ask the uncomfortable questions, they should also be sure to point out that accusing someone of being a racist for simply asking questions is a poor deflection tactic, and one that can not be tolerated any longer.
We should all be reminded that it is never hateful or bigoted to ensure that our leaders are, themselves, interested in making (and keeping) America great.
Samuel Earl Di Gangi is a writer, political commentator, graphic artist, DJ, and musician with a strong pro-Libertarian & pro-Christian lean. He is the curator of “The Correct Views”, or “TCV”, which is a member show of the newsgroup “The Media Speaks”.