Joe Biden named Kamala Harris his running on the democratic party ticket because she is black and no other reason like qualifications, record, personality, etc… As it turns out there are other advantages to being a black democrat: no one is allowed to question or criticize them because it’s racist. Questions have arisen about Harris’ citizenship and eligibility to serve as VP, similar to the “birtherism” questions surrounding Barack Obama. For some reason those are very racist but it was fine when the liberal media was doing the same thing to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Ted Cruz, who are all non-black Republicans.
Earlier in the week Newsweek published an op/ed by a law professor who pointed out that Kamala Harris’ parents were not U.S. citizens when she was born, which could mean she doesn’t meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born U.S. citizen. It’s the same argument against anchor babies and no court has ever given a ruling on this. It could be that she ain’t a citizen or maybe it’s nothing. The point of the article was to ask questions on something that has yet to be settled and it’s really not that big of a deal.
Following this article, liberals had meltdown and accused everyone to the right of them of being racists for even pondering such questions about Kamala because, as was already mentioned, she’s a woman of color who plays for team democrat.
Nobody was more personally offended by this than white CBS political reporter Grace Segers:
are we going to have to deal with birtherism every time a black candidate is on the presidential ticket or
— Grace Segers (@Grace_Segers) August 13, 2020
For some reason, Segers never actually finished this thought and left that “or” hanging there like a piece of spinach stuck in her teeth.
In any case, clearly CBS is saying that this is something that only happens when a black democrat is running for president. I can only assume nobody at the network knows anything that happened before last week or has access to the Internet.
Here’s The New York Times from 2008 when John McCain was running for president against Barack Obama:
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”
The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
I don’t remember that being racist.
Nor this when democrats accused Mitt Romney’s dad George of not being a citizen when he ran for president. From Reuters:
…one-time Republican presidential candidate George Romney, was born in Mexico.
Records in a George Romney archive at the University of Michigan describe how questions about his eligibility to be president surfaced almost as soon as he began his short-lived campaign.
In George Romney’s case, most of the questions were raised initially by Democrats who cited the Constitution’s requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can be president.
As early as February 1967 – a year before the first 1968 presidential primary – some newspapers were raising questions as to whether George Romney’s place of birth disqualified him from the presidency.
By May 1967, U.S. congressman Emmanuel Celler, a Democrat who chaired the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, was expressing “serious doubts” about George Romney’s eligibility.
The next month, another Democratic congressman inserted a lengthy treatise into the Congressional Record in which a government lawyer – writing in a “personal capacity” – argued that George Romney was ineligible for the White House because he was born outside U.S. territory.
And liberals used George Romney’s birth in Mexico to question Mitt Romney’s status as a natural-born citizen when he ran for president against Barack Obama.
Those are white guys and everybody knows racism doesn’t apply to them, but what about Ted Cruz who ran for president in 2016 and is Hispanic? From U.S. News and World Report:
AS EXPECTED, THE question of whether Sen. Ted Cruz is eligible to hold the office of the president based on his Canadian birth is now front-and-center…Constitutional scholars are dusting off their crystal balls as they are asked to discern what the Founding Fathers really meant by “natural born” citizen. Let me join the chorus of opinions by saying that based on the original framework of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, Sen. Ted Cruz does not appear to be constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the president.
For the record, there have been more questions of citizenship of Republicans than black democrats: 4-2. Okay, make that 3-2 because Mitt Romney doesn’t qualify as a Republican anymore. Okay, he was never a Republican. Okay, it’s a 2-2- tie because John McCain was never a real Republican either. I’m done.
