The Plot To Remove Kamala Harris

One of the most commonly asked questions I get from people is “Is Biden going to run in 2024?”

Or sometimes they ask it a different way: “Biden isn’t going to make it to 2024, right?  So who will the Dems run?”

Your short list for 2024 on the Dem side is:

Biden

Harris

Newsom

Michelle Obama (or as Malik would say, “Big Mike”)

So….let’s work through that list.

Biden is old, senile, angry and most likely so hyped up on drugs that he will not be serviceable (or likely alive) for 2024.

He’s also toxic considering all of the scandals — and more to come.

Then you go to Harris.

There is a lot of speculation out there that Harris is not a Natural Born Citizen, and thus does not qualify to be President.

To be fair, there is debate on that topic, but the fact that the “Fact Checkers” have told you it’s definitely, surely, trust us, not true, tells me all I need to know:

There are two guarantees in life…

ONE: anything Jim Cramer says, the opposite will happen.

TWO: whatever the “Fact Checkers” tell you, the exact 180 opposite is most likely true.

So seeing these Fact Checks tells me Kamala is likely not eligible.

Here is a portion of a Newsweek article confirming there is serious scholarly debate on the issue:

Were Harris’ parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood.

Interestingly, this recitation of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause might also call into question Harris’ eligibility for her current position as a United States senator. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that to be eligible for the office of senator, one must have been “nine Years a Citizen of the United States.” If Harris was not a citizen at birth, we would need to know when (if ever) she became a citizen. Her father’s biographical page at Stanford University identifies his citizenship status as follows: “Jamaica (by birth); U.S. (by naturalization).” But there is some dispute over whether he was in fact ever naturalized, and it is also unclear whether Harris’ mother ever became a naturalized citizen. If neither was ever naturalized, or at least not naturalized before Harris’ 16th birthday (which would have allowed her to obtain citizenship derived from their naturalization under the immigration law, at the time), then she would have had to become naturalized herself in order to be a citizen. That does not appear to have ever happened, yet without it, she could not have been “nine Years a Citizen of the United States” before her election to the U.S. Senate.

I have no doubt that this significant challenge to Harris’ constitutional eligibility to the second-highest office in the land will be dismissed out of hand as so much antiquated constitutional tripe. But the concerns about divided allegiance that led our nation’s Founders to include the “natural-born citizen” requirement for the office of president and commander-in-chief remain important; indeed, with persistent threats from Russia, China and others to our sovereignty and electoral process, those concerns are perhaps even more important today. It would be an inauspicious start for any campaign for the highest offices in the land to ignore the Constitution’s eligibility requirements; how else could we possibly expect the candidates, if elected, to honor their oaths to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and…to the best of [their] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

Dr. John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori professor of law & community service and former dean at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. He is also the 2020-21 visitor scholar in conservative thought and policy at the Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization, University of Colorado Boulder. Dr. Eastman is also a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and founding Director of the Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. Eastman ran in the 2010 Republican primary as a candidate for attorney general; he lost to Steve Cooley, who lost to Kamala Harris in the general election.

So then you go to Newsom and Michelle Obama.

In either of those cases, you have to execute an almost impossible double swap.

First you have to get rid of Kamala and bring in the person you ultimately want to get in.

Then once they’re in place as VP, then you have to get rid of Biden.

A double swamp has never been successfully done in our history.

Oh, and you also have to do it with enough timing cushion to get that person in and established before 2024 so that they can campaign for the 2024 election as the incumbent.

Almost impossible, but that’s what is reportedly being discussed right now behind the scenes.

Please enjoy this video from Juan O’Savin talking with Nino on Rumble as Juan explains it all in much greater detail:

What do YOU think?

Will they successfully remove Biden and Harris?