Constitution Class-Is Pres Kamala constitutional_ W Douglas&Brady

1:30:40

auto-scroll word highlight

Transcript

0:04 Just give me one second. I'm going to go ahead and start the recording. Okay. You let me know when you're ready. All right. This is water, not vodka. So I know that's what I did the other day. I got this really expensive bottle of flat water at an Italian restaurant. And I told Alpha when I was drinking it the other night on his show, I'm not drinking wine. So then the rest of the show, he called me a wino.

0:47 smoothie thing, whatever that is, something mango cards. He's got these mango card drinks. He loves it. He used to do when we did the glitch in the matrix. It's like a foo-foo beer. You let us know when you're ready. All right. As soon as I get Bridget up here as a co-host, so I don't have to pay attention to it anymore. All right. She's good. All right, guys, we're going to go live with Brady and Douglas on our constitutional class of Kamala Harris presidency.

1:22 Let's go. Hey, everybody. Welcome. This is a combined effort between my ongoing series called The Refederalist Report and the Colonel's Space Speed. I decided to join forces today to hit on a topic that is near and dear to a lot of people's hearts, and that is natural-born citizenship. Is Kamala Harris eligible to be President or President of the United States? And joining me today, of course, is Colonel Towner Watkins.

1:53 Very good friend and frequent co-host talking about things like Operation Gladio. Also, my very good friend and also frequent co-host, Mr. Constitution himself. Good morning. Well, let's jump into it. Is Kamala Harris. Is she a natural born citizen to be president?

2:24 the organization called the Constitution Association, which filed a lawsuit in 2020 asking this exact question. And that lawsuit has made its way through the courts and has been rejected everywhere in the system. It is now in a position to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That's a little bit of a background. I'll let you jump in. This is your baby. Well, the case goes back to December 7th, 2020.

2:53 The last sentence in the 12th Amendment says that the vice president must meet the same eligibility requirements as the president. Of course, she's also not eligible to be vice president in the first place. That's the reason why we sued. Originally, we wanted to try to get on a Constitution Day, September 17th, but the courts had other ideas when it came to filing it. So December 7th, 2020, and it's a 60-something page lawsuit. You go to Constitution.

3:24 www.constitutionassociation.yolasite.com. We dropped the constitutionassociation.com because it cost us money we didn't have. And you can find the case or you go to my old blog at politicalpistachio.blogspot.com. And on the right-hand side, there's a link also to the case. And the question is, why is it she's not eligible?

3:50 When it comes to her lack of eligibility, it comes down to that little term natural born citizen, which is not defined in the Constitution. So therefore, you have to research what they meant when they put it in there. This is not something to be broadly interpreted like they like to do. And that's what we did with the case. We provided a deep understanding.

4:15 evidence as to what the original intent, original meaning was, and cases and other resources that support that. It went to the district court in San Diego, federal district court, in which it was dismissed on something called political question, which I'll get into later. And then it went to the circuit and they hit it with political question and standing.

4:41 And then we filed a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court by a year and a half ago. And basically a writ of certiorari is a request for them to review it to decide whether or not they'll take it. And we've not heard anything since. And you don't rattle the Supreme Court's cage. So while we have sent a couple of letters asking about the status, not.

5:09 heard back anything of yet. Interestingly enough, with the latest events, my phone and my email has been going crazy. Everybody basically is like, Doug, if ever your case needs to be out there, this is it. Well, I agree it's got to be out there. I've made the argument the Supreme Court is going to do everything in their power not to adjudicate the situation because if this were to be adjudicated...

5:37 Not only does it implicate Kamala Harris, but it probably invalidates Barack Obama's entire presidency because he also would fall under the same suit. This also impacts a bunch of other potential presidential candidates, including the likes of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley. Am I missing any? Bobby Jindal. Bobby Jindal. Wasn't there another Democrat that was impacted? Well, Obama.

6:08 And I'm sure there's more. And because of the natural born citizen clause, I have been informed that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump's mom was not at the time of their birth. So if that's the case, then they're not eligible either. So this is a uniparty issue.

6:38 Yeah, and I didn't really get into the definition per se because I wanted to save it for the show. But ultimately, when you say uniparty, yes, both parties have characters that are involved. It's funny you say uniparty. One of my sayings in my speeches is, you know what the difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party is? I like some of the Republicans. But when it comes to, yeah, and that was actually important with the case. I didn't want it to be.

7:08 some partisan case and actually uh ted cruz and marco rubio and bobby jindal are mentioned in the kamala case it's also not being eligible along with obama as well and because we wanted to make sure it came across that this is not some targeting of a democrat this is a constitutional issue and we don't want it to happen again and the founding fathers had a good reason for it and the definition of natural born citizen to get back to my original point before i started going off on that tangent is

7:38 Both parents need to be citizens at the time of the birth of the child. So being born on American soil or just being a native citizen is not enough from the founder's point of view. Both parents need to be citizens at the time of the birth. They want the child who's going to be president of the United States someday to be basically a second generation American.

8:04 That was important at the time because they had just fought a revolutionary war in which their countrymen, Tories, who had allegiances still to the British Empire, fought against them. If ever there was really a civil war in this country, that was it. And the Tories tended to have at least one parent that was still a British subject or a British citizen. So what defining natural-born citizen...

8:32 The way they did did was it kept Tories out of the White House. And last thing you want is the enemy to be commander in chief. So this was this was critical at the time. And it is a way to act or at least guard against foreign influence. That's a good point. Yeah, it's about loyalty. And I'd like to say that they probably had Alexander Hamilton in mind when they were discussing this. Perhaps. So explain that. Explain that.

9:03 If ever there was the first lefty in the United States, he was it. Agreed. He's a big government guy. It's funny because my wife, who finally opened her eyes politically about a year ago, I've got her reading actually a book called Hamilton's Curse by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. And she wants to read how Alexander Hamilton screwed up America by Brian McClanahan after that. But Alexander Hamilton, born in Bermuda, he was...

9:33 Everything a Tory would be minus the disloyalty to the new country. He was still a British subject from his parents, through his parents, and wasn't even born here. Not that that matters as much as who your parents were. And he had some bad ideas. He was the one that was behind the first bank of the United States, the Central Bank, which ultimately led to the second bank of the United States, and then finally our Federal Reserve.

10:02 which Ron Paul, God bless him, always kept saying, we need to audit it. No, we don't need to audit it. We need to get rid of it. But he was behind that. He was behind the idea of implied powers, this ridiculous idea that there are powers in the Constitution that are not listed, but the federal government has them, these mystery powers. And when arguing against him, Jefferson said,

10:28 It was over the bank of the United States. The powers are not listed expressly enumerated in the Constitution. And Hamilton says, well, you need to be able to read between the lines. And Jefferson responded, I did. And all I saw was blank space. The thing about Hamilton is born in the Caribbean on Nevis Island and came to America as a young man. He was absolutely an American patriot.

10:54 He loved his country. He fought in the Revolution. He was Washington's scribe. He just believed that in a world of empires, we needed to be an empire, too, to compete. Yeah, and he proposed on the floor of Philadelphia that we needed a kid. And he proposed to Washington to do that. And as Washington's right-hand man, that would have put him in a very nice position. Just coincidentally. Yeah, tyrants tend to do that. They like the opportunity to also, well, be a tyrant. All right, so we're on the floor in Philadelphia.

11:25 We are trying to decide eligibility for president. And how did that debate go? Let's talk about Mattel's law of nations. Well, first of all, the debate wasn't a debate. Everybody agreed. Natural born citizen in a conversation. I mean, literally, if you read Madison's notes, it was needs to be a natural born citizen. OK, we're good with it. I mean, it was really that quick. In fact, John Jay, who was also kind of a Hamiltonian minded guy, even the Hamiltonians.

11:54 realized that natural-born citizen was a good idea. And John Jay, who was a Hamiltonian, he also served as our first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote a letter to these guys, Franklin, I believe he wrote it to, saying, hey, let's make sure that the president is a natural-born citizen.

12:19 This was a big deal, and everybody, even the ones that were a little off kilter, agreed for the preservation of this country to keep the enemy out of the leadership positions of the executive branch. We need them to be natural-born citizens. When I say them, the president and vice president, and at the time, the vice president was the second-place winner in the presidential election. That changed with the 12th Amendment.

12:49 and the vice presidential position was a separate election since then. But to make sure that the eligibility held, as I mentioned earlier, the final sentence of the 12th Amendment states that the vice president must meet the same eligibility requirements as the president. The other thing that's interesting when it comes to the Constitutional Convention, when it came to that, is

13:15 It was very early, and it was very quick. So it wasn't just quick. It was very early. This was something they needed to take care of. They wanted it down, and that was it. Done with it. It's an amazing thing. It really wasn't a debate. Speaking of Atel's Law of Nations, there were three copies of that document or that book on the floor of the convention. So this resource then would be considered important to the founders because of the three copies there. Two were brought by Franklin.

13:45 one in French, one in English, and the one that was brought by Washington, the one in English. The two copies by Franklin, he mentions that in his autobiography. And then in other writings, they mention that Washington had borrowed a copy and had brought it to the convention. So that tells you it's an important document. And in Vettel's Lob Nations, and I don't have the section number off the top of my head, but it indicates that to be a natural-born citizen, one must have...

14:15 citizen parents, plural. So can I interrupt for just a second? Because I think this is a point we've gotten away from and lost.

14:25 What you just said about the vice being the number two in election competitions up until the 12th Amendment is huge. Can you just talk about that for a couple of minutes? Because most people, just like the whole senators used to be sent from the state legislatures, they have no clue about this. So I want to make sure people understand that you had to be eligible to be the president to even be the vice.

14:53 Well, and like I said, the first elections, first couple elections, first three elections, four elections, that's how they did it. The winner was president, second place was vice president. The problem was, and the Adams presidency was a great example, because you've got to remember, when they originally wrote those first seven articles, there was no political parties. They knew what they were, and they knew that they might come up, and in fact, in Federalist Paper No. 10,

15:23 James Madison refers to the different factions or ideologies, ideas, beliefs, and really what would become party lines. And he explained that the way to control the factions is to set them against each other. That way, none of them takes too much power. And that's why the United States Senate also was.

15:47 you know, appointed by the state legislatures, one per house in the state. So one would represent the state house, you know, would represent state Senate. The state Senate's tended to be a rural representation because there's one per County. There's a whole different discussion there. So that's a whole show in and of itself. Oh yeah, absolutely. But what it did is it made sure that the minority voice, the rural voice had as loud of a voice as the city voice so that

16:13 the city faction could not control when it came to the president vice president they had the first place winner second place winner because it would be the first competitor which probably thought differently and they felt that having the president vice president would offset each other once again uh you know and it's like our two houses of congress are very different it's like i tell people my classes it was all about um

16:40 A different frame of mind or different way of looking at something. It's like the old saying, two heads are better than one. That doesn't mean two of the same head. It has a different perspective. And so you had two houses that different perspective, president and vice president had different perspective, but they realized that was dangerous at the executive level and it wasn't working out too well. And it was creating a lot of controversy and, and dangerous situations. So they changed it so that.

17:06 You had a presidential election, a vice presidential election. Here's the other key. They're supposed to be separate, distinct elections. It's not supposed to be like, you know, president slash vice president, one ticket. You just have one little whatever to vote for, first of all. Second of all, the electors were doing the voting, not the people. Once again, republic, not a democracy.

17:33 and the state legislature voted for the electors, and then the electors voted for the president. A couple points on that. If you look at the list of presidents of the United States, there's only one listed that did not have a political party, and that was George Washington. He also, in his farewell address, warned about factions. As did John Adams, actually, even though I'm not a fan of John Adams as president. Great revolutionary, great friend of Jefferson.

18:02 Her presidency's horrible president. Well, you have a problem with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798? I have a problem with everything he did because Hamilton was whispering in his ear. It was Hamilton's Federalists who got wiped off the map in the 1800 elections. And they never recovered. Well, and how Jefferson pretty much destroyed the Federalist Party. GOP, take note here.

18:32 Jefferson became president. He fired the Federalist Party, half of the deep state of the bureaucracy, got rid of them without any without any power inside and underneath. And what would today we call the swamp? They couldn't recover. Cool. No, no, I'm loving this. Keep going.

18:57 You know, she's doing a little educating or learning on the other side of educating. So you're enjoying being on the other end here today. I mean, most of this stuff I know, but I think we've gotten lost as a country in the history. And that's why I think it's important to have these conversations, you know, almost like an annual civics class that people need to be.

19:26 reintroduced to because, as you point out at the beginning, in your lawsuit, you cannot divorce the original wording of documents that created terminology from its history and then come to today to try to apply it to a completely different set of circumstances without understanding the background of what was originally intended, original intent.

19:55 And things it's like the and I don't mean to get off track, but it's like the Second Amendment and these retards people saying that, oh, well, they didn't mean cannons. Well, yes, in fact, they did. So I think that they tried to. Oh, well, you're not allowed to have F-15s. I don't remember there being a qualifier in the Constitution. So if you don't understand where it was and why it was developed, because that had nothing to do with defending your home, you lose the current.

20:25 Argument because you don't know your history. So I just love this. Real quick, because I want to get back on the main topic is, you know, you're exactly right. One of the things that I like to say to my classes is I've noticed throughout the Constitution there's no asterisks. You know, asterisks unless there's an emergency or asterisks unless they're not there. The Constitution is pretty definitive on what it says, first of all.

20:52 Secondly, and this I think this is important when we understand this, is it is a contract between the state party and the feminist, the creation. And when you have a contract, you don't loosely interpret what's in there. You go back to the minutes of the writing of the contract. But what has happened in the 1803 Marbury versus Madison case really got this launched full on. But really, it goes even back to.

21:20 uh alex jenner hamilton with his implied powers while arguing the uh regarding the national bank bank of the united states very early on i mean the ink wasn't right so to speak on the constitution he's already arguing implied powers and that is broad interpretation and one of the stories i like to tell my classes to help people understand how dangerous this is to understand in all kind of layman's terms

21:46 My wife was born in Mexico. Her first language is Spanish. Her dad did it right, went through a program that allowed him to save up some money and bring his family here. She was like six months old when they moved here. And so Spanish is her first language. English is her second language. My father-in-law, first thing he did when he came to his country, he took two classes, learn the language and get a skill, became a welder.

22:13 Did it right. One of my heroes. And while his English was broken, spoke pretty good English. Mom, however, never learned English. And so if I wanted to, so that's why I get along with my mother-in-law so well. But you've been married for just as long, you never learned Spanish. What, you want me to ruin my relationship with my mother? What a communicator. So my wife will sit down and I'll tell my wife in English what to say to her mother. She tells her mother in Spanish. Mother responds in Spanish. She tells me in English.

22:45 And I believe her, even though maybe the look on my mother-in-law's face doesn't match what I was told. At that moment, the interpreter has all the power. It doesn't matter what she said or I said. The interpreter completely controls the conversation. The moment the judges made themselves the interpreters of the Constitution, the problem. And now we get back to natural born citizen. So therefore, they have interpreted.

23:16 natural born citizen to mean birthright citizenship, which is a bad interpretation of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause as well. And then they interpret the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case as saying, if you're born in America's soil, you're automatically a citizen. If you read the case, that's not what it says. It doesn't matter because they interpret it to mean what they want. You make an important distinction here.

23:45 The Constitution in Article 2, they were not trying to define what a citizen is. They were trying to say that there's criteria that are above and beyond a regular citizen to be the President of the United States. And what are those criteria? Well, it's right here. Skipping to the bottom, they were talking about you had to be 35 years old. Well, you don't have to be 35 to be a citizen.

24:11 But you have to be 35 to be the president of the United States. They assumed that was the wisdom by then. They also required you to be 14 years of resident within the United States. They didn't want somebody who'd been hanging out in France for the last decade to be able to come back and bring some of those vile European ideas with them. And the first criteria, though, no person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States. Embrace the power of or.

24:38 Doug, talk about this sentence here, please. Well, first of all, it's just a little bit of this idea of birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship basically says if you're more American soil and you're a natural born citizen, therefore citizen and natural born citizen are really the same thing. But this is telling us right there, they're not the same thing. It says, or.

25:05 Since the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, why would they, first of all, separate the two if they're the same as we've been told in interpretation? Because they're different. Citizen and National Department of Citizens are two different things. Secondly, why would they even have to add that since the time of the adoption? Because at the time, the country, you've got to realize, this was written in 1787. We've been a country since 1776. So the country...

25:35 was only 11 years old, which means the oldest natural-born citizen, in other words, child of two citizen parents, was only 11 years old. You had no natural-born citizens walking around age-wise to be present for a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption. Well, if natural-born citizens are citizens of the same thing, and citizens are good enough,

26:01 They wouldn't have needed to put that. They wouldn't have put that. They would have said, ah, you just need to be a citizen. Why natural born? Well, I'm told, all right, like native citizen or born on soil. Why going out of their way for the term natural born citizen? They put it there for a reason. There's a meaning behind it. They didn't just, hey, this sounds good. They put something like natural born citizen.

26:30 So there are two different things, and it's something special. Then that's when you break out stuff like Battelle's Law of Nations. Or you can go to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790, where natural-born citizen is also defined. Or you've got six cases of dicta, basically, that went to the Supreme Court that also confirms the definition.

26:56 of Natural Born Citizens, the most recent one being the 1875 Minor v. Happersett case. Okay, so let's go to that. See, the left loves courts, precedent, all that jazz, case law. So I was like, okay, let's throw that into it too then. If that's what you want, then let's find it. Now, in the lawsuit, there are six of them listed. Actually, Natural Born Citizens even mentioned

27:26 and defined property in the Dred Scott case, which is interesting in its own right. When I say dicta, what I mean by that is the case was about something else, but natural-born citizen was still defined in it. So in other words, the case wasn't about natural-born citizen. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, a woman was suing for her part in her father's estate. She was told as a woman she didn't get a part of that estate. Her brothers are going to get it, and she sued.

27:55 to get her part of her father's estate. And Chief Justice Morrison Waite, I think is his name, if I remember properly, in his judicial opinion wrote, well, she's a natural born citizen, right? Born of two citizen parents. So she, like her brothers, is entitled to the estate. So he used that as an example.

28:24 But he defined it correctly, as did the other five cases before that. And, you know, if I remember properly, the Venus was the first case. That goes all the way back to 1814, I think it was, which mentions natural born citizens. So that's actually while most of the founders, almost all of them are still around. Right. We know about that wonderful situation.

28:53 Now, my joke is it took him four miserable days to die. That was the good part. But anyway, enough of my off course here. My point is these definitions were around early on. There is documentation, court documentation showing us the proper definition. But once again, we have a leftist ideology.

29:20 That has a leftist narrative. It must support. And. Proper definition. Doesn't fit their plans. So. Define it. That's what they have done. I don't necessarily. Just mean Democrats. I think it's important.

29:42 leftist on a number of occasions. Let's define for new listeners what we mean by the difference. First of all, I tell people you'll never hear me say right or right wing. There is no right unless you're an anarchist or a pure democracy person. God bless you. Constitution is dead center. Everything else is to the left of it because nobody, except for, like I said, anarchists and people into pure democracy, want less government.

30:11 than what the Constitution calls for. Even the GOP is to the left of the Constitution. I know some libertarians that want less government than the Constitution. Or they want it at the state level, too. That goes beyond what was intended.

30:29 And we can get into local. But that is a good point because that comes up all the time in conversations. And thank you, Brady, for pointing that out, because the conversation is left versus right. And there really isn't anything. And to your point, yes, libertarians want a little less.

30:52 Yes. Yes. And everything else is all of the isms are way over here. Fascism, totalitarianism, because it completely throws the Constitution out. I love the fact that you anchor. This is the first time I've heard this. You anchor the Constitution in the middle. And I love that concept. It is a creative big government, but it limited the hell out of it. Yes. Yes. I love that concept.

31:20 The problem is the left-right definite dynamic that they use actually comes from the French, which is, if you go back to the French, what was going on right before the French Revolution is those who supported the king, supported the state church, and wanted no change sat on the right of the auditorium. Those who were secularism and wanted change and were supporting the new revolution that was on the horizon.

31:47 They sat on the left, and the moderates sat in the middle. That's where it comes from originally. Here's the thing. We didn't have a state church. We didn't have a king. So that does not apply to the United States. So what developed in the United States, left-right, is 100% government to the left, 0% to the right. Anarchy. That's why I put anarchy over there and democracy over there, because democracy also, it's all about the people voting for everything. But what's funny is anarchy and democracy, while they are on the right, always wind up.

32:17 On the far left, because the very people that push those ideologies are the ones that wind up in control. Correct. And they are to the left, which is 100 percent. And so the Constitution is dead center. So everything else, if it's bigger government than what the Constitution calls for, they're to the left. And like I said, that includes the GOP. The only thing that I. Yeah, the the funky writers, but nonetheless, to the left.

32:45 The only thing that I would add to that is, to me, I understand you're visually portraying that, but I think anarchy and democracy is a gateway to the left, which makes it seem somewhere in the middle of constitutional and the left, since it's the gateway to get in there. But I understand your point, and it's very well made.

33:10 To your point, Colonel, everyone assumes that you can describe human behavior in a two-dimensional scale. Absolutely. Turns out it's more like a loop. It's more like a loop because when you have a nature of doors of vacuum, you have no government. Yes. And then fill the gap. Yes. Some kind of a strong man, totalitarian government. 100%. Which is why people start crying out. There's no order. People start crying out for order. And the very people who caused the disorder say, hey, we'll give you order.

33:39 But actually, I would say the cause and effect is a little different after Operation Gladio. The state causes the disorder to bring in the control. It's a Galilean dialectic. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. If you're not familiar, you watch this. What do they mean, a Galilean dialectic? Basically, there's three things. You've got a problem, you have an opposition to the problem, and a solution to the problem. And you create the problem. So BLM and racism is a great example. Yes.

34:10 They create the problem. BLM is the opposition to the problem. What's the solution? More government, more communism. That'll solve it. So that's how the Hegelian dialectic works. And that goes all the way back to Frederick William Hegel, which goes all the way back to the early 1800s. That's the guy that Karl Marx studied. Yeah, and I'll give you a couple more examples of that that we've seen recently.

34:35 You don't actually have to manufacture the crisis altogether, but you can definitely make it seem a lot worse. You look at climate alarmism. Basically, the solution, whether it's global warming or global cooling, is more government. And in this case, global is government. You saw the same thing with COVID. There's a COVID virus. They made it seem a lot worse, and their solution was more government. And that's what they do. 9-11.

35:03 All of the terrorist attacks, all the same thing. Create the chaos and we've got the control. Because fear is a really good way for people to otherwise make when they're afraid. All right. Let's get back to the topic. So, Doug, we had a comment on this topic earlier in the week on Twitter or X. And one of the people did a contrary opinion.

35:35 He said he'd listen to the show if I showed his, um, uh, some quote here on the screen. So this is from the Vargas. And it says every baby, excuse me, born in the United States is automatically an American citizen, except for the children of diplomats from the United States exercising that function.

36:04 In this type of specific exception, children acquire the nationality of their parents. Can we stop there for a comment? There's a lot going on back there. Well, this kind of goes into what I use. I'm a diplomat, so let's do a little exercise here, whoever you are listening. Let's say you then are on vacation, say to Indonesia, and your wife or you, if you're...

36:35 A female has a child in Indonesia and it's two Americans on vacation. Is that child an Indonesian citizen? No. Your allegiance, because child can't decide, your allegiance. What if you're in the military? You're stationed in Japan. Your spouse or you have a child in Japan. Is that child Japanese? No. So the diplomat is one of many possibilities.

37:05 And that actually isn't about natural born citizen as much as it is citizenship. This goes back to the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment where it says that you need to be born or naturalized. And that word and is a very interesting, it's like you pointed out or earlier, and is interesting. It means there's a second requirement. If I was to write a check to Brady and the colonel, they would both need to sign it.

37:30 If it was to Brady or the colonel, then it could be either or. So and means there's a second requirement. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Now, today's legal eagles will tell you, well, that means inside the borders and subject to the laws. All right. Well, yes, that is a part of it. And Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, I believe it was.

38:01 who was one of the writers, he and Senator Trumbull were the two main writers of the Citizenship Clause. They ran the committee and they stood before Congress in testimony regarding what they wrote. And on May 30th, 1866, Jacob Howard says, well, we mean more than that. We mean full jurisdiction, meaning full allegiance. Therefore,

38:27 And once again, this is not saying these people can't go through the process. This is saying these people are not automatically citizens. He says, so exempt from citizenship will be Indians not taxed. Indians not taxed are basically Indians that have decided not to become part of the American experiment, not become citizens. They're outside. And the children of diplomats, ambassadors, foreigners, aliens.

38:57 children of foreigners and aliens. So they're not even citizens. And this is where it gets real interesting. And the reason it's important is it gets real interesting with Kamala. Kamala's not only not a natural-born citizen, she's not even a citizen using that definition. She was born in Oakland, sure, but who were her parents? They were students. Neither one of them at that time had filed for any kind of permanent residency or immigration or anything. They were visitors, no different than a diplomat.

39:28 And let me add something here, because having lived overseas and almost had a baby overseas, I'm very familiar with this. You are not as like my if you have a dependent spouse overseas, they are not subject to all of the Italian, which is where I lived.

39:54 I was not because I was under status of forces agreement, which exempts all military from being considered under any law. My dependents were not. You had to ask the U.S. permission in order to subject them to the law. And that is true with most student statuses as well. There is a diplomatic cover.

40:21 for people that are in a foreign country, and that's why they have foreign embassies in countries where you can go and seek refuge if you are being sought by that country. You are deferred a certain amount of diplomatic status by being a non-citizen in a country. You don't get to give that up. That's not an option. And so now it gets back to, you know, just basic citizenship. Therefore,

40:51 And I know international law says, well, at 12 or 14 or something like that, the kid can decide to have dual citizenship, which, by the way, the United States doesn't technically recognize dual citizenship. People don't realize that. The rest of the world does. The United States doesn't. You become a citizen. What do you do? You renounce your prior citizenship. Unless you're in Congress, of course. Well, or unless you slid under the fence.

41:18 Anyway, oh, yeah, my wife, you know, in 2007 is when she did her, you know, become a citizen thing. It was a beautiful moment. It was very exciting. But anyway, get back to the point here. So it goes way beyond diplomats. If you're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you're not a citizen. And if your parents were not citizen parents, you're not a natural born citizen. Now, if you read the Immigration Act, the immigration alien.

41:45 Immigration Act of 1790. I think it was called something more. But anyway, it also indicates that you could actually be born on foreign soil. But what really matters is your parents. If your parents are citizens, then you're a natural born citizen. You could even be born on foreign soil. That's why I cracked up because they're all about, well, Obama was born in Hawaii. I don't care if he was born on Mars or in Kenya. Was both parents citizens at the time of his birth? And by his own admission.

42:15 His father wasn't. Not that I'm fully convinced that's his father, but that's beside the point. So we now have two things, natural born citizen and citizenship. And we've defined both of those, natural born citizen and citizenship. And both of those are hurdles in order to determine eligibility in some manner.

42:43 Not just politics. Absolutely. I'm not going to get the same privileges and immunities in this country if I'm not a citizen. Article 4 and the 14th Amendment for the states kind of copies a lot of that language. Privileges and immunities are these things that we get by being citizens. Remember the word citizen? Actually, C-I-T-I, it comes from city. In the beginning, we had city states.

43:12 You had cities that had walls around them. And you got the privileges of being a member of that city if you were a citizen. If you were a visitor, you didn't get those privileges. Same thing with citizenship in a country. And citizenship's a big deal. I know there are certain circles that try to make it like it's a bad word. It's a good word. I want citizenship to be an important thing, though. And they've turned it into something that isn't.

43:38 Citizenship's important. That gives you the privileges and immunities of being an American to receive the privileges of being a part of this experiment. If you're not willing to go through the process, then we're not willing to give you those privileges and immunities. There's an absolute distinction between a citizen and a subject. Absolutely. That's one of the main reasons we have the Constitution and fought the Revolution. Well, but you can't have a subject.

44:07 is subject to the jurisdiction of the government. A citizen, the government is subject to what the citizen wants. Big distinction. Yes. And also, you can't have citizenship mean anything if you're trying to implement a world government. Sovereignty and the independence of nations goes out the window in the sense of globalism. So all of these increments to destroy our definition of citizenship is on the road to...

44:38 the one world government. Yeah. That's why you have to. Yes. One world government is one of the things down the road. Yes. Comes down to this. It is, it is the way that they are going to destroy individualism. Yes. But that's why you have to play. That's what it comes down to. Yes. That's why you have to play here. You cannot allow them to bastardize the citizenship.

45:08 definition, because that's one step further down the road. You plant the flag right here. It's a movement to take away from your individualism as American, as a collective member of the world family. But that's been the goal from beginning even before individualism was really on the horizon, is destroy individualism.

45:31 to put into collectivism. This idea goes back all the way all the way back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed in something called the general will. The general will was a will of the people that the people didn't know. But don't worry, the elites understand it and will interpret it for you. And in one of his quotes about it, he actually says, sometimes men have to be forced to be free.

45:56 I make the argument this goes all the way back to Greece, but we don't need to go into ancient history. It goes all the way back to a snake in a garden, for that matter. I love it. You're absolutely right. So it's not to make myself a liar. I'd like to be a man of my word. Let's finish the rest of this screen share from the Vargas Law Group, because we did promise we would do that. Since we've discarded the first phase, go to the next.

46:24 It says once the children are born, the birth certificate is processed and with this document they can obtain an American passport. Sure. Children born on American soil will continue to be American citizens for life unless they carry out some action that is a punishment results in the loss of their nationality, regardless of whether soon after being born they immigrate to another country.

46:53 Not necessarily true. You can renounce your United States citizenship. I don't think that's a punishment. That's a choice. That was in my mind as well. Because I looked into this quite extensively. Up until 2016, I was thinking about becoming a, moving to the Cape Coast and basically dropping my U.S. citizenship. I didn't like the direction our country was going. I didn't see any chance to reverse it. So I looked into it quite a bit. And we are one of the only countries in the world.

47:22 where you actually have to pay money to leave the United States. There's actually an immigration tax that they put on you. It's somewhere around 35%, which it was back a decade ago. I don't know what it is now. It's an exit tax. California's trying to do that with the state. Yeah, and it's a good thing you and I both got out in the last year, and California did. Now, see, if you have an exit tax, what does that say? Yeah, we know it's lousy, but we're going to force you to stay if we can.

47:55 Anything else on this paragraph or should we finish this one up? Go ahead. When the child is born in the United States, parents often think that children can petition for them at any time. But this is not the case. American citizens can petition their parents only after they turn and petition for their parents only after they turn 21 years of age. This is addressing. I'm trying to remember exactly what the court case was, but the child.

48:24 Addresses anchor baby. So if you have a baby here, you turn like 14 years old. Now you can have your parents become citizens as well. And so if we can go back to since we're all about original intent here, the clause that they're using to anoint a child as a citizen upon birth, irregardless of citizenship requirements.

48:52 was intended for what purpose? Well, if you're looking at the Constitutional Clause, the Constitutional Clause doesn't allow that. A person born in America is not a citizen. Right, but where are they getting this from? What's the basis of this? No, the basis is the slavery, where people, the quote, the section of...

49:20 the constitutional amendment, the 14th Amendment, that gave the birth... The Civil Rights Act of 1866. But it even says that in the 14th Amendment. But you're right, as far as... But they're misinterpreting a... What's the word? I don't want to use reparation. But it was recognizing...

49:48 People who were brought here involuntarily as slaves, having been born here, trying to include them where the southern states after the Civil War still did not want to recognize them as citizenships for voting rights and all of that other stuff. Is that not correct? The citizenship clause was to make sure that the children of the slaves were also recognized as citizens.

50:20 They also knew when they wrote it that it would be used as a citizenship clause for everything. Trumbull and Howard were well aware of what their task was and what the implications would be. So they wanted to make sure it was written well enough that it was understood across the board so that it couldn't be played with. Of course, it was still. I don't know exactly where you're going other than that.

50:49 part of it, but I will say this. To petition or sponsor your parents, that's basically what that last part is. I have no problem with a citizen sponsoring their parents to come to this country. But the problem is an anchor baby is not a citizen. Right. The original intent, as explained by Trumbull and Howard, the children of foreigners and aliens are not just automatically citizens. Correct.

51:19 The process in which they renounce their old citizenship and they show that allegiance. Once that allegiance is there, you're a citizen, naturalization or whatever. But to just say, oh, they're born American citizens. I mean, do you want an anchor baby that has allegiances to another country because they didn't renounce that citizenship to be president of the United States? Didn't we just already have that? No, I'm just saying. Yes, we did a couple of times.

51:48 I like to say somewhere in Kenya, there's a village that's missing its village idiot. Doug, in the next 10 minutes, you want to bring home the final thoughts on the topic, and then we're going to open it up to the questions from the colonel's ex-account? When I explain this to me, it's very simple. First of all, the founding fathers were very fearful of foreign influence.

52:17 exceptional country. When I say exceptional, exception to the rule. Different from the rest. We were designed to be as unrighteous as possible. Of course, now we're trying to be more like them, but that's beside the point. And so the idea was for us to be as different as possible, be exceptional, and therefore to do everything we could to guard against that foreign influence, foreign political ideas. And that included natural resources for

52:47 And if you read Article 1 also, what you notice is in order to be in the House or in the Senate, you not only have to be a citizen, you have to reside in the country seven or nine years, depending on which one you're talking about. So they wanted to make sure there was as little foreign influence as possible. That's what's behind natural born citizen. It's not to be mean. It's not to not allow everybody into our big tent.

53:17 It is to protect the country from foreign influence. Of course, my favorite is still, does that mean that C-section babies are not eligible? But I think that's the point. So I've actually heard that. But anyway, so that's number one. So now understanding that, you've got to find the definition. It's like the way I like to explain this stuff. I wrote a book right now, and I mentioned fast food in the book. And 200 years from now, some archaeologist digs it up.

53:44 They see fast food. 200 years from now, I have a feeling that these restaurants, that fast food joints ain't going to be around. I don't know it's going to be around. Probably not what we have. And the archaeologists might be, gosh, what is fast food? Why was it fast? Did they have to chase it? They don't know because it's 200 years ago. So what do they do? They then go to the resources of the time, the dictionaries, the encyclopedias. I guess Wikipedia won't be around anymore.

54:14 And that's what we did here. Natural born citizen. We have our ideas of what we think it ought to be. The politicians have said so. But what did they really mean? You go back to the resources. And Mattel's Law of Nations is one of those resources. And we know it was an important resource because three copies were on the floor. And it says to be a natural born citizen, you must have. And at the time, they also used the word native and natural born together.

54:43 We now kind of have separated those in our own vernacular. That's beside the point. And it must be of citizen parents, plural. Immigration Naturalization Act 1790 supports that. Six judicial cases, the dicta by the chief justices in their judicial opinion supports that. That is our way of making sure we understand the definition, just like the future archaeologists with the definition of fast food. That's what we've done. And it's still rejected. So why is it rejected?

55:14 because there's a narrative that cannot be dislodged, and they'll do anything to protect it. You brought up something interesting about the requirements to be a member of Congress, and I wanted to point out a glaring difference between that and the requirements to be the president. It says no person shall be a representative. They have an age requirement of 25 years, and then seven years a citizen of the United States. So keep those words in mind.

55:41 I'm going to go down to the Article 2, and it says,

56:13 wield the power of the executive branch and being the president of the United States, you add a higher criteria. That's a step up. That's a very important distinction. Yes.

56:51 Once again, let me explain this. I'm not talking about your parents having to be born citizens. For example, my wife, once again I mentioned her, was born in Mexico. She naturalized in 2007. Our children were born in 1985 and 1990 before she was a citizen. So while they are citizens, they are not natural born citizens. Now with my wife and I,

57:14 God help us if this ever happened. We have a child now. He's a citizen. So it doesn't necessarily require two born citizens, just as long as they're both citizens.

57:56 And that's a huge distinction. Colonel? Colonel? Colonel, can you hear me?

58:29 Ma'am, you're banding really, really bad. So if you want to know more, check out my books. Awesome.

58:54 I had to move because for some reason, you must have said something that X didn't want. So they're trying to mess with our reception here. So I wanted to move out in order to be able to try to get a different signal to stop you guys from banding on here. The whole thing has been fine all the way up until now. They most not want anybody to ask you guys questions. So I do have a hand and I will post all of the links to your. Okay.

59:24 I will post all of the links to your information when I repost this space after we get done. Okay, awesome. Go ahead, Ron, ask your question. Well, I didn't want to – actually, I wanted to contribute a little bit because a lot of the stuff that Doug and Warhamster were saying were –

59:53 unintelligible. And I just kind of wanted to pick up the ball a little bit. I don't know if you guys have covered this because I came in a little bit late, but in essence, you cannot be a citizen unless you have parents who are citizens. That is the crux of the matter. Yeah. Okay. Forgive me. Natural born citizen. Correct. Natural born citizen. Thank you for correcting me.

1:00:18 Yeah, you guys were just – it was just really, really unintelligible, and I didn't – it was a lot of stuff that Doug was trying to say. I mean, Doug and I – for those of you who don't know, Doug and I host a class where we teach the Constitution basically every Tuesday on my channel. So I've been doing this for – how long have we been doing that, Doug? Like, what, three years now? Three years. Yeah.

1:00:43 But anyway, I'm not trying to steal any thunder or anything. I was just trying to help. There's still a few hamster droppings on the floor in there. Still, yeah. A few hamster droppings, yeah. Okay. Stellar, go ahead. I just wanted to say thank you, thank you, thank you for just having the intentions of the framers of our Constitution and the definition of natural-born citizens.

1:01:12 I was one of those ones that had a father that was overseas. And my mother was, I think by the time that I was born, she was a green carded American. But I was born on foreign soil and stuff. And so I already knew and understood that part. But so thankful that you're giving the definition of natural born. And I'm even more angry because been bamboozled.

1:01:36 pretty much my entire life, you know, on the anchor baby thing. So your clarification was 100%. Thank you so much for making me feel so much better, along with I'm sure a lot of other Americans and citizens of our country.

1:01:50 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for separating and defining the actual definition of what natural born is. And do you think that the Supreme Court is going to have to do a definition for it, you know, like for a clarification because things have changed? Or do you think it'll just stay the way that it is? You're banding again, ma'am.

1:02:28 Southern California. And I would tell my classes, I'm going to anger you once you know more. So just be aware of it. The question is, what are you going to do with that anger? Be active. Were you guys able to hear? Hold on, just hold on. Hold on. Hold on just a second. We were banding again. Was you able to hear that last part, Stellar? Only the part when he said that he was going to anger his students. No, anchor. Anchor.

1:02:58 Oh, it was sounding really bad. I didn't understand very well. Once you get the truth, it makes you angry. Yeah, well, that's kind of what we've been doing. Yeah, exactly. And that's what the anger is. Hold on, guys. Hold on. Something. They really don't want us to be talking about this. I wanted to make sure to shout out this channel, which is the Untold History channel. And that's where...

1:03:28 It's the Constitution every Tuesday at 3 p.m. Pacific. Yeah, you can also find it if you type MrConstitution.com with a hyphen between Mr. and the C. So it's Mr-Constitution.com. I'll get you to his page. And on Tuesdays at 4 p.m. Pacific, 7 p.m. Eastern time, I was supposed to be on the air last Tuesday, and something happened that made it impossible for me to get on the air.

1:03:58 So if you're like, well, gosh, I'd like to go through the whole Constitution with it, but I'd like to start from the beginning. This Tuesday, I started at the beginning. It's the preamble. I did an introduction to the Constitution a couple weeks ago. Last week, I got delayed. I was unable to be on the air. So this Tuesday, I began line by line through the Constitution from the preamble. So mrconstitution.com, but put a hyphen between the M-R and the C. So it's M-R hyphen.

1:04:27 constitution.com that'll get you to the page and then just find the videos that say learning the constitution those are our shows he has all kinds of shows on there it's his page but uh what's the ones say learning the constitution and you got my mug on and those ones those past episodes but um they always change a little bit not because the information changes but because the politics that are going on changes and i do use real world today examples often

1:04:56 As I go through it, this is one of the things that people like about following me through the Constitution. I go line by line, word by word. I go through the history. I go through the intent. And I give you some examples to help you understand. I use allegories, metaphors, and real-world events so that you fully understand. Because I do realize that in your thirst of knowledge, I am feeding you with a fire hose. And so I try to...

1:05:23 Break it down as well as I can so that some of that you're able to retain as you're being smacked with that hose of knowledge. The reason why it's so hard to learn is because we've been lied to so much. This is often what I get. And so I'm not explaining the way it is. I'm explaining the way it's supposed to be.

1:05:52 I'll tell you the way it is while I'm going through that, but the way it's supposed to be and why we need to get back to that. Awesome. Did you have anything else you wanted to say, Ron? No, I just was going to say untoldhistory.tv takes you directly to my Rumble channel. But I am noticing, is it just me or are other people also noticing that Rumble is beginning to censor stuff? They are. Yeah.

1:06:29 They are beginning to censor. I'm having videos taken down. I said I'm having videos taken down now. He said he had videos taken down on Rumble. Ron, you're the second person who's made that comment to me in the last couple of weeks. And I know the other person's content was something that YouTube would not have allowed, but I would have expected it to be able to stay up on Rumble. I don't think it's a problem yet, but it's something to keep an eye on.

1:06:59 I mean, Ron, you know, the stuff that we don't talk about, you know, we basically blow out the CIA. Well, but I will tell you for the last five days, probably six days, they've demonetized all of my videos. Yes, that too. I'm going through the Perloff book about Shadows of Power and those videos are all demonetized. Yes. So did anybody else have any questions for Doug or?

1:07:29 Brady, Bridget, go ahead. Okay. Just a quick question. Now, since Kamala is vice president and she was technically unqualified to be vice president, what are the, I mean, does that, is there any retroactive?

1:08:03 That's why you filed your lawsuit. Is that not correct? The lawsuit? As for retroactive, the way the law is set up is you would still need to go through the process of reversing anything they did if it was to be proven that they were ineligible. For example, let's say right now we would prove Obama was ineligible. He should have never been in office. Everything that he signed would still be enforced. It would still have to be reversed. It wouldn't just suddenly.

1:08:32 No, Obamacare doesn't just disappear overnight. Yeah, unfortunately. You would have to file a petition to have it reversed because he didn't have the authority to do it. Right. That brings up another interesting question that came up in the last week or so. People were speculating that Obama could run as the vice president. No, it's insisting because if you read the language of the 22nd Amendment, it doesn't specifically say.

1:09:02 that you can't run for vice president, but it does say that if you're not eligible to be president, you cannot be vice president. It goes back to intent. The reason they put the 22nd Amendment in place is they did not want presidential dynasties. And if you can run four plus four plus two, it's the exact same math as two plus four plus four. If you serve the last two years of someone else's elected presidency, you'd still be eligible for...

1:09:31 to run twice, but no more than two years. That gives you the 10-year limit. No more than two terms or 10 years is what the 22nd Amendment says. And if you have served that time, you are not eligible. And in the 12th Amendment, it says in order to be vice president, you have to meet the same eligibility requirements as president. So if you can't run for president, you can't run for vice president. Simple as that. Barack Obama is not eligible. I don't care how people want to parse the language.

1:10:00 In the 22nd Amendment, he's not eligible to become president. 12th Amendment says if he can't run for president, he can't be vice president. Simple as that. He is out. And for those of you who think Donald Trump is still the president of the United States, well, that would mean he can't run in 2024. And I don't think that's the result you want. So let's back away from that narrative. Well, of course, the joke is he's the first. It's 2024. He'll be the first president since FDR to win three times.

1:10:31 True. True. Well, I think I think I think the thing there is that a lot of people are differentiating between commander in chief of the military and president because these are unprecedented times. But I could just be parsing words there. But that's kind of the distinction. Yeah, Ron, that's definitely Ron. That's definitely one of the narratives that's out there. We're going to do a show on that next couple of weeks to really press that 71 corporation. But let's stick to this one.

1:10:59 Chase the rabbit. Stop that rabbit. That's right. All right. Do we have any other questions? Bridget, go ahead. One other quick question. And that is, and this actually comes from Cousinette. She's having some connectivity issues. She wants to know about the dual citizenship in Congress. Is that constitutional or, you know?

1:11:30 No. No? Now, would that invalidate technically? Yeah, when someone becomes a citizen, they actually have to renounce their old citizenship. No, you can't be a dual citizen. The United States actually does not recognize dual citizens. People who are dual citizens are recognized by the rest of the world as being dual citizens, but legally, the United States does not recognize dual citizenship. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

1:11:59 Stella, did you have another question? Yeah, I was so glad he said that because I remember when I was three years old, four years old. And then when I was older, I had the choice to, I couldn't, well, in Korea, I was born in Korea. So apparently I was Korean. When I came to the US, I came over and then later ended up becoming a naturalized citizen. And I still remember as a little kid swearing in for my citizenship.

1:12:27 I never thought that dual citizenship was legal because you're making our oath to our country, the United States, and not to any other one. So you literally do renounce it. And so I ended up becoming a naturalized citizen fully by the time I was in my 20s. But thank you. With all this knowledge that we're learning.

1:12:46 What as we as a people can do, you know, understanding now what natural born law is or natural born citizen, these other things, what can we, besides spreading it here on X and to our friends and stuff like that, but what can we do to make a difference to get the shenanigans to stop or take control of our power again, our country? Two things. One, of course, get active, which you referred to there. And the other thing is there are those who are doing things that are beyond what you can do.

1:13:18 You can help them. I remember I was teaching a class in Fallbrook, and this gentleman walks up and he says, Doug, you've lit a fire under my bottom. I want to get involved, but I'm not a speaker. I'm not a writer. I'm not a door knocker. I'm very shy about that. What can I do? I said, find your favorite candidate and offer to stuff envelopes for them. There is always something to do. There are people who are doing big things that you wish you could participate in. You can't.

1:13:46 One of the things I'm working on and not to rabbit trail too far is I want to get convinced Utah to defy the 17th Amendment and something called Reynolds v. Sims. And I've been talking so far to two legislators there. That takes money. That takes time. So what I would then say is you then provide funds for those who are doing the things you want done. For me personally, DouglasVGibbs.com.

1:14:16 They're the way to donate. It's a patron page. $9 a month helps fund what I do. That's what I would suggest because we can't do everything. We want to do so much, but there are those out there. They're doing things we want done. And find those people and help support them either with volunteer hours or funding. How do you save your country? Don't just talk about the 17th Amendment.

1:14:43 Reynolds v. Sims, and that is going to be our topic next Friday. On my Rumble channel, which is all one word on Rumble. We are going to talk about how different this country would be if we followed the original intent. People are familiar with Reynolds v. Sims or the way it was. That's my baby. I like the flow here today, so maybe we'll get you on that one as well. Yeah, I don't get the chance to do the dumb blonde routine very often, so I love being here.

1:15:22 with you guys. And we all learn. Ron, go ahead. I just want to say that, yeah, the Reynolds v. Sims and the 17th Amendment to me are actually more important than, they're all important, but I'd say that the Reynolds v. Sims and 17th Amendment have actually had a much greater impact, negatively speaking, on the country for the past 100 years than the...

1:15:49 than a person who's not a natural-born citizen becoming president, because that's only been really since 2012. So absolutely make sure that you tune in. No, I mean, we can go back to the 1880s. Oh, okay. Well, you got me on that one. There's not going to be a natural-born citizen. But, you know, Realty Stem and the 17th Amendment, you flip those, everything else starts falling in the middle. Amen to that.

1:16:19 On the bones the next Friday. Yeah, I won't give any heads up as to what that is, but absolutely tune into that because when you figure that out, you want to talk about being angry, you will really be angry. Oh, you're going to make me a very angry person because I want to soak up all this stuff. So 17th Amendment, I'm going to get on it right now. And so let me just add, Stellar.

1:16:48 from our perspective of going through history and revealing all of the evilness that makes everybody ticked off too. One of the things that I advocate wholeheartedly is you guys, if you don't already have it, you need to have a checklist for every person you vote for. You go to every town hall that they have and you ask them the questions on the checklist.

1:17:14 What's your opinion? What's your definition of natural born citizen? What's your definition of a citizenship? Do you know what the CIA is doing? Do you know that they're the kings of assassinations? Do you know that they were, you know, so as we as we reveal history to you, you ask your candidates and your representatives these questions and you get what and then you tell them I'm not voting for you because you don't even know what the hell the Constitution says. So.

1:17:44 I don't know how to respond to their wrong answers. You do that with knowledge. Yes. I love this. Thank you. Their response was political question. And what they meant was they said in their response to us in the judicial opinion that it's up to Congress to determine eligibility. And by suing.

1:18:07 Kamala, we are setting Congress and the courts against each other, which is a violation of separation of powers, which is ridiculous. My response when I made my appeal was this. In order to have a power to do something, it must be listed in the Constitution. That's called the enumeration doctrine. It must be enumerated or listed in the Constitution. If it's not there, the federal government doesn't have the authority. And nowhere in the Constitution is the authority regarding eligibility.

1:18:35 listed in the constitution therefore congress does not have that authority so then where does the authority lie 10th amendment says that if that if the power is not given to the federal government and it's not denied to the states it belongs to states or to the people here we are people thank you we have the authority ninth and ninth circuit didn't like my education unfortunately and said i was full of it and then also added we didn't have standing but

1:19:01 We have to know how to respond also, and that's why we need to be so educated, because they will always come up with their cockamamie answers, and we have to be able to respond to them. Yeah, that's such a great point that Colonel brought up. One of the things that in the 2022 cycle, I was very active in California. I went to a number of events where people were running for judgeships. I would wait for them to ask me these questions, and the first one I would ask them is, how did you feel about being a marketer?

1:19:32 This is Madison. And he asked that to someone who's a product of American system or our law schools. They're not going to answer. One judge actually gave me a reasonable answer. He says, well, this is the way it should be, but that's, I don't think you're ever going to get enough. But yeah, it's basically, if you don't know, that's the Supreme Court decision where they basically gave themselves the power to decide what was constitutional. You know, that's the review. Let's just sum it up and stay there.

1:20:03 It's one of my major litmus tests. Yeah. What the courts did is it was sort of like your child giving themselves the authority to have the keys to the Ferrari and the liquor cabinet. And they decided that on their own. And I think that's important that when you ask your potential representatives questions, you already know the answer. And after you've asked them a couple of times, if you know the answer.

1:20:31 You get an idea of how they're going to respond. You do your homework. You come and watch Doug and Brady and Ron. And you ask those questions and you prepare your next approach. And you keep refining your own knowledge. But you as a citizen have to take an active role in the selection or election of your representatives.

1:20:57 Those of you who do not bother to go to town halls, those of you who do not bother to visit your representative's office and talk to the staffers and make your positions known, you are doing yourself a disfavor. And you can donate all the money you want to other people to talk. It doesn't matter. You're the one electing the representatives. You have to hold them to account. This election by proxy is ridiculous.

1:21:25 You need to know. You need to know the information before you ever ask the question. Frog, go. Yeah, so I may have missed this. Sorry, I'm working. But if Kamala is eligible because she's an anchor baby, which I don't think she is because her parents weren't born in the U.S., my question is, she went to middle school and high school in Canada. Has she ever actually got her citizenship in the United States, and how do we find that?

1:21:54 That's one question that I have as far as that goes. And thank you for the space, by the way. I would say there's no naturalization paperwork, because she assumes she's a citizen by being born on American soil, even though there was no allegiance. It's not that her parents had to be citizens to be a citizen. They could have been here on green cards. They could have been filing something that shows some type of...

1:22:21 connection to this country or allegiance. They were students. So there's where the citizenship thing is. A natural-born citizen, that's where they both need to be citizens. Not necessarily born here, but need to be citizens at the time of her birth. And in her case, neither was reached. She's not a natural-born citizen nor a citizen. And technically may not be a citizen at all if she never did the paperwork because of those two things. That's where I was going with that. You know, Tom Hanks played, you know, where...

1:22:51 Country belongs to him, kind of thing. Yes. I know Ted Cruz is a sinner. The guy was born in Canada to a mom who had voted in the previous Canadian election, but they don't recognize dual citizenship. So neither one of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, and he was born in a different country. And then he renounced his citizenship to Canada back in 2016. And therefore, he's actually a man without a country, too, if you want to get technical about it.

1:23:20 Ted Cruz absolutely is eligible to be a U.S. Senator, just not the President of the United States. Well, we assume that... I'm not sure he's a citizen. I love the guy as a Senator, but I'm not sure he's a citizen. So let's throw Marco Rubio in. Marco Rubio absolutely is eligible to be a U.S. Senator. Standard to be President or Vice President of the United States.

1:23:50 Absolutely intentionally listed. There you have it. All right. We're going to take one more question here. Stellar, go ahead and ask your question. Well, so he said that with the Supreme Court, they're throwing it back down to the states. So within all of our states, we all have state constitutions as well. We have all the powers in the states as little countries.

1:24:15 As well. So if it's getting thrown down to the states, would we as citizens want to? Well, I know that they did shenanigans here in Nevada with our Nevada state constitution. Then the people we also have to get in control of our.

1:24:31 state constitutions as well. And thank you for bringing up, you know, that's going to be another question because I meet with these people on a regular basis. I'm going to ask them about what their definition is of an anchor baby or a natural born citizen and stuff like that on top of not only the questions that I ask if they're MAGA and America first, but now I'm going to, I have another question to ask with all of these people. So thank you because I do get very active here in Nevada. So that's why I'm asking.

1:24:59 clarification when you said they threw it back down the states if you're referring to my case against kamala harris no they did not go back down the states the supreme court just has not addressed it it's been sitting on the clerk's desk probably under a bunch of pile of paperwork for a year and a half they just haven't addressed they haven't thrown it back down they haven't addressed it at all

1:25:21 Oh, well, then that's even worse if they're just ignoring it because that's something that needs to be ruled or just a definition. I've been making the argument, you know, I'm 100 percent behind. I've made the argument that the Supreme Court will do everything in their power not to address it because that really it's an attack on the establishment. If Barack Obama is declared legitimate, that's a sacred cow they don't ever want to sacrifice. That's a can of worms.

1:25:50 that the establishment that runs our country is the world. They absolutely do not want to address it. They're going to try to. I wish that weren't the case. And I'd love to see, because if you address the natural born citizenship, they also have to adjudicate chain migration because they are all in the same conversation. So you can't rule on one without the other. And that changes the nature of our entire electorate. The entire house of cards on them. So, yeah, it's an incredibly important case.

1:26:21 I'm not holding my breath to have it. I will be sitting in the sharing them on. So, well, we all will be that's for sure. Okay. So that finishes up the, the question and answer period. And again, I can't thank the two of you enough for participating in this and taking the questions. This is just.

1:26:51 Yeah, and we will definitely have to do it again, especially if the next show you guys feel is as important. I would love to be able to stream that over too. Even if I don't participate, just stream it over to X so that we can get you guys a much broader audience and more people in on the history and the accurate history.

1:27:21 um, of all of this information because they're, they're very thirsty for it. Um, Colonel, can you tell everyone where to find you? I'm at, um, the Colonel's Corner on Substack and on Rumble. And then I'm at Colonel Towner on X and Colonel Watkins on True Social. And where can I find you? And if you're looking for me on Twitter,

1:27:52 If you're looking for me on Facebook, Douglas V. Gibbs. Douglas V. Gibbs is all I need to remember. So douglasvgibbs.com. In fact, yesterday I wrote a nice little piece about Kamala the communist. Check it out. You can actually go straight to my blog at politicalpistachio.com as well. You must be talking about her Marxist dad. Actually, I go just into her record.

1:28:23 When she's a Marxist, all on her. Yes, yes. Douglas V is in Victor Gibbs, just so you guys can. I also have two radio programs on AM radio. One of them is on all the podcast channels. And so if you look for Mr. Constitution Hour by Douglas V Gibbs on your podcast channel, chances are it's there. That show is actually on a Salem media station in San Diego. And then I have my KMET.

1:28:50 on Saturdays from 1 to 3 Pacific, which is a live radio program. You can call in. It's on AM radio. Check that out as well at KMET1490AM.com or just go to DouglasCGibbs.com for all the info. Oh, Doug, we got to give Alan some love here. It's the name of the channel. Well, it's the Patriots Soapbox. And it shows for the Republic.

1:29:19 Sunday nights between 5 and 7 Pacific. DLive.tv, I think, is the link to watch it live. Look at Patriot's Soapbox. That's with an S at the end of Patriot. Patriot's Soapbox. I believe is the way to get there. As we get a little bit more technical.

1:29:45 savvy, we're going to start putting all of these out there on douglaslegibbs.com and all that. I've been having trouble getting videos on my page, so the last video you see on my douglaslegibbs.com right now is a few months ago, so I'm trying to... There's a quirk somewhere that's messing with everything. douglaslegibbs.com for me. And you can find me, my main channel is on rumble and warhamster, all one word, underscore hamster 1776. Please put the 1776 there. There are more.

1:30:17 Hamster's on Twitter. One of them once got a pretty big channel. He's a big guy. Seems to be. You get me on true social at underscore hamster. It's been a lot of fun. Thanks for everybody listening. Something like that. Absolutely. Thanks.

Entities here

Kamala Harris13 Barack Obama12 U.S. Supreme Court9 Alexander Hamilton8 United States7 The Law of Nations6 Thomas Jefferson5 Emer de Vattel5 Jacob Howard5 Constitutional Convention 17875 Reynolds v. Sims4 Rumble4 Ted Cruz4 Naturalization Act of 17904 Marbury v. Madison3 Constitution Association3 Bank of United States3 Marco Rubio3 Minor v. Happersett3 Lyman Trumbull3 John Adams3 James Madison3 Donald Trump3 George Washington3 Benjamin Franklin3 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2 Operation Gladio2 September 11 attacks2 CIA2 Federal Reserve2 Canada2 John Jay2 Bobby Jindal2 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel2 Federalist Party2 Vargas Law Group2 Black Lives Matter2 Nevis2 French Revolution2 United States v. Wong Kim Ark1

Claims made here

Alexander Hamilton proposed Bank of United States guest_asserted ▶ 9:33

“He was the one that was behind the first bank of the United States, the Central Bank, which ultimately led to the second bank of the United States, and then finally our Federal Reserve.…”

Federal Reserve succeeded Bank of United States guest_asserted ▶ 9:33

“He was the one that was behind the first bank of the United States, the Central Bank, which ultimately led to the second bank of the United States, and then finally our Federal Reserve.…”

Alexander Hamilton proposed George Washington guest_asserted ▶ 10:54

“Yeah, and he proposed on the floor of Philadelphia that we needed a kid. And he proposed to Washington to do that. And as Washington's right-hand man, that would have put him in a very nice position.…”

John Jay headed U.S. Supreme Court guest_asserted ▶ 11:54

“And John Jay, who was a Hamiltonian, he also served as our first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court…”

Alexander Hamilton headed Federalist Party guest_asserted ▶ 18:02

“It was Hamilton's Federalists who got wiped off the map in the 1800 elections. And they never recovered.…”

Thomas Jefferson removed_from_power Federalist Party guest_asserted ▶ 18:32

“Jefferson became president. He fired the Federalist Party, half of the deep state of the bureaucracy, got rid of them without any without any power inside and underneath.…”

Morrison Waite headed U.S. Supreme Court guest_asserted ▶ 27:55

“And Chief Justice Morrison Waite, I think is his name, if I remember properly, in his judicial opinion wrote, well, she's a natural born citizen, right? Born of two citizen parents.…”

U.S. Supreme Court covered_up Barack Obama speculative ▶ 1:25:21

“the Supreme Court will do everything in their power not to address it because that really it's an attack on the establishment. If Barack Obama is declared legitimate, that's a sacred cow they don't ev…”