Follow America's fastest-growing news aggregator, Spreely News, and stay informed. You can find all of our articles plus information from your favorite Conservative voices. 

Recent polls have revealed that Vice President Kamala Harris has seen her approval ratings drop to the lowest levels for a Vice President in nearly 30 years.

This has sparked speculation over whether or not President Joe Biden will replace her atop the 2024 Democratic ticket, with many commentators noting that Biden may win without Harris, and risk serious backlash from the Democratic base should he fire the first female, first African-American, and first Asian-American Vice President.

An NBC News survey conducted earlier this month reported that out of registered voters only 32 percent had a positive view of Harris compared to 49 percent who had a negative view; leaving an overall net rating of -17 points.

Additionally, 39 percent of respondents said they have “very negative” views on the vice president.

The White House is aware of Harris’ low poll numbers and have reportedly begun efforts to improve her image.

Tom Rogers, editor-at-large for Newsweek wrote: “The perception that (Biden) will not be mentally fit enough to carry out the demands of the job may be unfair, but that perception is clearly held by a majority of voters including Democrats and Independents.” He went on to note however that Biden could still win without his current running mate.

Axios reported in April 2021 that Anita Dunn, one of the most prominent figures within the West Wing has instructed political teams within The White House to collaborate in organizing events featuring Harris to advocate for key Democratic initiatives such as infrastructure spending and abortion rights.

The outlet wrote:

This is a huge shift from much of Biden’s first two years, when there was mutual distrust and anonymous sniping between the vice president’s team and the West Wing.

Harris, initially saddled by Biden with no-win issues such as immigration and a stalled voting-rights bill, has frustrated many of his top aides. She has suffered frequent staff turnover, and rarely has been entrusted with high-profile assignments.

U.S News & World Report stated The White House has its own ‘backup plan’ for if Biden appears too old or unwell for another term: amplifying Harris’ prominence so voters can get a firsthand look at what it would be like having her as leader instead.

“The more people are reminded of the leadership of Vice President Harris … the more people are reminded of the outstanding public servant she is, the more she becomes a threat to the Republican Party,” Laphonza Butler, president of EMILY’s List and a senior adviser to Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign, told U.S. News.

Despite all these efforts, however, experts suggest it’s unlikely Joe Biden will actually replace Kamala Harris due to potentially grave consequences with his bases supporters; particularly Black Women who were paramount in helping him secure election victory last year.

“Harris has her critics within the White House and those around Biden. The relationship between the president and vice president has been described as friendly but not intimate. Even so, the political cost of replacing Harris, if the thought ever crossed Biden’s mind, would far outweigh any gain,” Mark Barabak wrote in a column for the L.A. Times in February.

Mark Sidney

View all posts


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • The public impression of Harris is not going to be improved in some way by any of her phony staged actions at this point. People today are beginning to see abortion as the elimination process of the poor that it actually is. Harris will not make African Americans any richer by destroying their own children before birth. All that she amounts to is a Black Judas sheep sent by Margaret Sanger to eliminate the “chronic poor.”

  • Prep Kamala????? Surely thou jests FOOL .She didn’t listen to Wille Brown’s advice stay where you do your best work and that is horizontal.

  • I can just hear that cackling Bit** addressing the State of the Union, Word salad and laughing.
    She has never been Presidential or even qualified as a dog catcher.
    I believe she’ll pick Hitlery for VP, then step down to allow Communist Hitlery to be President.
    That just might be the Communist Democrats plan.

  • The Democrat Party Proves everyday that They are the Enemy of America. Everything they do Damages, Degrades and Destroys American Values of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Biden and his Gang have created Crisis after Crisis with No End in Sight. It has been reported that Joe Biden and his family have taken Large Sums of Money from China, Russia, Ukraine and Rumania. The Question (Soon to be Answered) is what did Biden and his Low Life Son give them in Return? Keep in mind, A VOTE FOR BIDEN OR ANY DEMOCRAT IN 2024 IS A NAIL IN AMERICAS COFFIN.


  • She’s NEVER going to be Constitutionally eligible to the office; she is NOT a “natural born” citizen as the Constitution requires; nothing can alter that fact. Technically, if 1 properly reads the 14th A, she isn’t a citizen at all, since her parents were not subject to US jurisdiction, at the time of her birth. Do we need another foreign national squatting in our WH, further corrupting our nation? the natural born crooks do enough damage…

    • You may believe that, but a foreign book, “Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains”, written by a foreign author in a foreign country in a foreign language about foreign law regarding foreign sovereigns DOESN’T dictate the Constitution. In addition, de Vattel never mentioned the US as his book was written BEFORE the Colonies revolted against Great Britain.

      While representatives to the 1778 Convention considered de Vattel’s book seriously, they also referred to a book addressing this issue that many overlook. That book had far more influence on American law. By English jurist Sir William Blackstone, t was “Commentaries on the Laws of England” and is the best-known description of the doctrines of English law. It became the basis of university legal education in England AND North America.

      Blackstone wrote, “The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.”

      So claiming Harris can’t run for the presidency is incorrect as the federal government, through Congress and/or the SCOTUS, has never definitively defined the meaning of Natural Born Citizen referred to in Article 2 Section 3, Clause 5 of the Constitution. I’m sure you and I’d like to see an amendment EXPLICITELY defining Natural Born Citizenship and eliminating automatic Anchor Baby citizenship.

      Please keep in mind the Constitution delegates the power to “define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations” to Congress. It’s important to understand what is and isn’t included in the term “law of nations” by de Vattel, and not confuse it with “international law” as they’re not the same. The phrase “law of nations” is a direct translation of the Latin “jus gentium”, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations. During the Founding Era it wasn’t considered the same as the “laws”, that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the “jus inter gentes”, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of “international law”. The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law. Emerich de Vattel’s books were merely treatises about the laws of nations, and WAS NOT THE LAW OF NATIONS as many suppose. That’s not to say they weren’t VERY important.

      By the way, if Sen. Cruz, Rubio, Gov. Jindal. Haley, and Harris aren’t US NBCs then all 3 of them are holding or held office illegally as none of them have been naturalized. You can’t escape that contradiction and be consistent.

      So see 7 FAM 1131.1, 7 FAM 1111 a(2)). b., Section 104(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1104(a)), 7 FAM 1131.2, 7 FAM 1131.4-1, 7 FAM 1131.6-1, FAM 1131.6-3, and 7 FAM 1131.9. Also see Citizenship Act of 1802, the Citizenship Act of 1855, and the Immigration And Nationality Act Amendments of 1986. Please also read 7 FAM 1132.4, 7 FAM 1132.5 Section 1993, 7 FAM 1132.6, and 7 FAM 1133.2-1 Section 30. Also see the Naturalization Act of 1790 ((1 Stat. 103), Naturalization Act of 1795 (1 Stat. 414), the Citizenship Act of 1934, the Nationality Act of 1940, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the Citizenship Act of 1966, the Citizenship Act of 1972, the Citizenship Act of 1978, and the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994. See 7 FAM 1132.4, 7 FAM 1132.5 Section 1993, 7 FAM 1132.6, and 7 FAM 1133.2-1 Section 30, and the Citizenship Act of 1972.

      Heck, we need to read the entire US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs. It’s long but very informative and has never been overturned by any court. Leave it to our pettifoggers to make matters as clear as mud.

      Also, please consider Minor v. Happersett. While it wasn’t about citizenship, the SCOTUS in its ruling issued an “obiter dictum,” a statement “said in passing,” by one of the judges that doesn’t form a necessary part of the court’s decision despite being included in the body of the court’s opinion. The justice referred to the NBC clause in the Constitution, stating;

      “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that ALL CHILDREN BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE CITIZENS THEMSELVES, UPON THEIR BIRTHS, CITIZENS ALSO. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. SOME AUTHORITIES GO FURTHER AND INCLUDE AS CITIZENS CHILDREN BORN WITHIN THE JURISDICTION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS. AS TO THIS CLASS THERE HAVE BEEN DOUBTS, but never as to the first. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SOLVE THESE DOUBTS. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.” (Emphasis mine)

      Then came the 1898 SCOTUS United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 Decision, based on the 14th Amendment, which set a vital precedent about the role of JUS SOLI by addressing the issue of those born in the US or its territories to foreign parents AS BEING CONSIDERED NBCs. The effect of the majority’s decision was that the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause,” referred to a person being subject to US law by virtue of being in the country and therefore was interpreted in a manner, consistent with English common law, that granted US citizenship to almost all children born on American soil. EXCLUDED were foreign diplomats, soldiers, and POWs.

      In essence, it ruled that ANYONE born in the US or ITS territories was a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN regardless of the parent’s citizenship except in cases of foreign diplomats or foreign troops in the US. It didn’t hijack anything nor has it ever been overruled. By the very words of the Constitution, the SCOTUS decides issues according to the express words in the Constitution.

      Unfortunately, the claim that citizenship depends on the status of the parents is based on de Vattel’s book. While some early Americans definitely argued for its definition of citizenship based on Jus Sanguinis, or the right of blood, the US adopted Jus Soli, or the right of soil, for most cases. The exception was that children born abroad to US parents are natural born citizens, even to US military families not living on US bases or not going to US base hospitals. Yet some conservatives, in addition to liberal Democrats, have claimed that Goldwater, Romney, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, McCain, Haley, and Harris weren’t eligible for the presidency.

      However, one of the important principles of constitutional exegesis is that if a power isn’t granted to the central government specifically, then the government doesn’t have that power. Therefore, while some Founders may have considered Vattel’s book, they didn’t explicitly put its citizenship definition in the Constitution. So those born in the US regardless of their parents’ status are US natural born citizens, as ruled by the 1898 Kim Wong Ark Decision which has never been overturned.

      That’s why I believe, and I hope you’ll likely agree, it’s critical that we demand that the SCOTUS clear up the issue AND that we call for an Amendment denying citizenship to anchor babies whether or not the foreign parents are here legally or not. Or do we want a Chinese president born in the US but raised in China by its Chinese parents and the Chinese government?

  • so, kameltoe is a mutt, a mixture of everything that she pretends to be. oh well, guess she don’t need the knee pads any more then.

  • Lord help us if the very first female president turns out to be a laughing hyena that doesn’t have a clue about anything. NOOOOOO, do not let that imbecile become president. No, No, No

    • That is what I worry about as she would do such a disservice to women in politics. The first woman VP has made it harder now for some really great women to pursue such a position. People will remember Kamala and say no way, not again.

  • She is a “brainless twit” who makes Biden look like a genius, which he certainly is not by any stretch of anyone’s imagination. All she knows is the ” passage of time” to describe anything & everything. She is not capable of having an intelligent conversation with anybody let alone negotiate any problem with any world leaders, especially our nation’s advisories.
    You would think she never got past a kindergarten education level, to listen to her talk! She’s a complete IDIOT!
    Biden surrounded himself with people who are bigger idiots than he is. At least those idiots are at least capable of walking and chewing gum without falling over their own feet.

  • No amount of prepping is going to make do her any good or make her any better. She is the only reason for not removing Joe Biden from office now. She needs to go away.



Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.