I’m reposting the video with my show notes, and Dr. Eastman’s explanation and substance of the discussion (I hope this is more organized):
Why: Kamala Harris may not be eligible to be President
Dr. John Eastman and Emerald podcast
Dr. Eastman explains what the 14th Amendment wording meant on citizenship, the amendment says, you've got to be both born in the USAndsubject to it's Jurisdiction.
The question is, what does "Subject to it's jurisdiction" mean?
• "subject to the jurisdiction" means the "complete Allegiance owned Jurisdiction" (US)
• not the "partial allegiance owned of territories" of the US. ie: Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Island..
• Everyone that is in our jurisdiction must comply with our laws,but not everyone in our jurisdiction has to pledge allegiance to our country.
• Not everyone within our borders are citizens, if they are visitors with travel visas (or sojourners) their children, even if born on US soil, is not a US citizen automatically. (anon’s comment: So this means all those women coming to America with travel visas, and checking into hotels and then give birth, their children are not eligible for Citizenship. If the mother is not a dual citizen of the US, the child is not a citizen.)
Kamala’s parents situation coming to the US: her parents were not eligible to have a child here and make her a US citizen for the following reasons:
• The parents were what they called: Temporary Sojourners (visitors, that is what they called them at the time) or temporary visitors.Temporary visitors are not subject to that complete Jurisdiction, so therefore they/her were not eligible for this birthright citizenship.
• Both of kamala’s parents were temporary sojourners, they were both here onstudents visas from Iran.
• And hermother’s visa we subsequently expired before Kamala was even born, so her mother was not even here lawfully
• And her father may have had some “diplomatic status”, in addition to having a student visa, but he wasn’t eligible either
(Holy shit guys, this is gettingmore and more BHO like, read what Dr. Eastman says. How long in advance to they plan these children to be US citizens from terrorist countries)
Dr. Eastman says, But even raising these questions leads to a tremendous backlash, oh you’re racist, sexist, that’s ridiculous I’ve been writing about this subject for 20 years.
Conversation:
Dr. Eastman:The “US jurisdiction” clause, has independent meaning from the “birth of US soil” clause, andwe’ve largely ignored that for the last 50 or 60 years. (Guess how old Kamala is: Kamala Harris born October 20, 1964. As of today, she is 59 years old. Barack Hussein Obama II was born on August 4, 1961, his age is 63 years old. It seems Iran had interest in both of them. There’s more reason to be concerned on the 2024 election):
Emerald: Did you ever suspect this would become relevant, as it is now?
Dr. Eastman:I suspected it would become relevant, but they wouldn’t ignore the underlying issue of the US Constitution and pretend it wasn’t even an issue. People are just blowing through it “as if the text didn’t have any meaning”, so nobody could raise the challenge.
“The Founding Fathers were wise, and right, and worried about ourNational Security and National Sovereignty.” That’s why this clause is there, and for them to pretend like it is like some archaic relic of the 18th century. If anything it’s more important today then it was even then.
“We had two oceans at that time which was hard to transverse, we don’t have that now,and we are supposed to completely pretend there’s not an issue here, with someone that may well owe an Allegiance of a Foreign Nation?
“perhaps even one, that is at odds with our own National Security Interest? (Her parents were students from IRAN):
“This is a problem and it ought to be raised in a serious way without the vitriolic Calumny, cast at anyone that raises this.
(If you research Kamala as DA in SF, in the Senate, everything she does, her goals are to destroy they culture of America, the border, let the whole world in, get rid of ICE, COPS, destroy the SC,etc. etc. etc., certainly sounds like terrorist plans to me, if a 59 years old )
Allegiance: noun
• The tie or obligation of a subject or citizen to his sovereign or government; the duty of fidelity to a king, government, or state.
• Hence Observance of obligation in general; fidelity to any person or thing; devotion.
• Synonyms Allegiance, Loyalty, Fealty. Allegiance is the most formal and official of these words; it is a matter of principle, and applies especially to conduct; the oath of allegiance covers conduct only.
Dr. Eastman did a full scholarship on this.This is the best explanation I've heard thus far.
Short video it's worth a watch
4:17
https://rumble.com/embed/v55qe4t/?pub=4