Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

(Jul. 2, 2019) — Shortly after the opening of Tuesday night’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” broadcasting from the North/South Korea border where President Trump visited on Sunday, Carlson’s producer showed a montage of mainstream-media personalities who accused Donald Trump Jr. of “racism” after he retweeted a remark last week claiming that presidential candidate Kamala Harris is not the descendant of American blacks.

Carlson interviewed Trump while he was in Japan for the G20 summit, from which he traveled to the Korean DMZ on Sunday.  There he shook hands with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un and stepped into North Korea with the intent of restarting stalled discussions on the denuclearization of the communist North.

On his Tuesday show Carlson accused the Democrat Party of sowing “division” among the electorate by injecting the accusation of “racism” into the dialogue about Harris while the montage’s commentators accused Trump Jr. and others of “birtherism.”

As The Post & Email reported on Saturday, the term “birtherism” again arose after the conversation about Harris’s background began to take shape on Twitter following last Thursday night’s debate during which Harris claimed she was the “second class” to benefit from busing aimed at integrating America’s urban schools.

Harris did not recount that when she was seven, her parents divorced and several years later, she, her sister and mother relocated to Westmount, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, where she remained through high-school graduation.

The “birther” pejorative was coined by the mainstream media after many Americans questioned Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility given the myriad of credible reports stating that he was born outside of the U.S. and not in Hawaii, as he claims.

Many in the media blamed Donald Trump for the rise of “birtherism” in early 2011 after he publicly questioned why the White House had not released Obama’s “long-form,” or more detailed, birth certificate listing his parents’ birthplaces and occupations, the doctor’s name and signature, and other details not found on the “short-form” image posted at Obama’s 2008 campaign website.

In an apparent response, on April 27, 2011, the White House released what it said was a PDF of a certified copy of Obama’s “long-form” birth record.  Within hours, however, it was declared problematic, and a subsequent 5+-year criminal investigation conducted by a volunteer arm of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) into the image declared it a “computer-generated forgery.”

Investigators additionally found Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form to be fraudulent and the short-form birth certificate image to be questionable.

Due to the media’s refusal to investigate the findings, many Americans remain uninformed that the only proffered documentation of a sitting president was deemed inauthentic beyond the standard of probable cause.

In addition to the reported forgeries, lead investigator Mike Zullo has said that it is “an open secret” in Washington, DC that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

At approximately 8:08 p.m. EDT, Carlson introduced his first guest, Rob Smith of Turning Point USA.  In his commenatary, Smith, who is black, said that those claiming Harris has no connection to former slaves or their descendants are correct.  He then reported that Harris was born in Oakland, CA to “immigrant parents.”

The fact that Harris’s parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth is the foundation of the questions surrounding her constitutional eligibility to serve as president.  Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen,” which, although not defined therein, involved a consideration of the citizenship status of a presidential candidate’s parents based on the opinions issued in four historical U.S. Supreme Court cases.

In 1872, Rep. John Bingham, considered the author of the 14th Amendment, described a “natural born Citizen” as one who was born in the U.S. and whose parents were naturalized at the time of his birth, a statement recorded in The Congressional Globe.

A letter from the future first U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, John Jay, to George Washington, who would nominate him, during the Constitutional Convention reads, in part:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

In Federalist #68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils” should be avoided.

In 1916, Democrat and President Woodrow Wilson’s third assistant secretary of state during his second term, Breckinridge Long, questioned whether or not Charles Evans Hughes was a “natural born Citizen” as a result of his birth in the United States to British-citizen parents.  Of Wilson’s Republican opponent, Long wrote, in part:

He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.” But is there not a distinction between “native born” and “natural born”? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized. The day after Mr. Hughes was born his father had a right, as an English subject, to go to the British consul, at New York, and to present his wife and infant and to claim any assistance he might need from the consul as the representative of the English government…

The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President. For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.” The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system. Following that line of thought, a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born. It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection. “Native born” does not mean quite the same thing. He might be born in a country under conditions similar to the conditions under which Mr. Hughes was born, and subsequently become a citizen of that Country. In that case, after he became a citizen, he would be a “native born” citizen, but he would not have been a “natural born” citizen. From the instant of his birth this government would not be solely responsible for his protection.

In Section 212 of “The Law of Nations,” published in 1758 by the Swiss philosopher Emer. de Vattel and believed to have been a key resource to the Founders, the author wrote:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

As was reported Sunday by legal scholar Joseph DeMaio, in May a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court termed de Vattel the “foremost expert on the law of nations.”

Correction, July 3, 2019, 6:47 a.m.:  This article originally reported that Breckinridge Long was Wilson’s secretary of state when in fact, he was Wilson’s third assistant secretary of state during Wilson’s second presidential term.

Join the Conversation


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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Harris mother does not matter. Per Vattel above: ‘I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.’


    Several cases beyond the 14th Amendment also clarify that just being born in the US does not make one a citizen, Elk vs Walkins 1884, that the US Supreme Court held that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.for example, that being said, it wasn’t till later that native Indians were granted citizenship. Even the touted Wong Kim Ark case declared she was a just a citizen.

    One notable case is President Grant’s daughter, in 1874, she, Nellie Grant married Algernon Charles Frederick Sartoris, an Englishman. The couple left the United States and lived in Great Britain. British law stated that an alien woman became an English subject when she married a citizen of Great Britain. (Again, the British Acts declared that the wife follow the condition of her husband, that same act followed Barack Obama’s statement as earlier noted and why there is no mention of Barack Obama’s mother) Did this give Nellie Grant dual citizenship? The Act of 1868 determined that, by establishing residency outside the country, she had relinquished her American citizenship. When Nellie Grant Sartoris returned to the United States at the end of her marriage, State Department practice at the time held that, by returning, she automatically regained her citizenship. Despite this, in 1896, she petitioned Congress to reinstate her American nationality. In a Special Act of 1898, she regained an unconditional resumption of her citizenship. Thereby establishing she lost her citizenship my marrying a foreign national. Mind you this was no ordinary citizen, but the daughter of the US President.

    Moving forward to the FIRST TIME a woman could retain her US citizenship if she married a foreigner was in 1922 with the Cable Act, when a woman married a foreign national she lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women, since again the wife takes the condition of her husband as do the children.

    Again, moving forward, to The Citizenship Act of 1934, a U.S. citizen mother were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.

    That being the case, think of both Barack Obama and Ted Cruz. Prior to 2007, numerous references concerning Barack Obama state Kenyan-Born. Stanley Ann married a British subject, under the British Nationality Act. Barack Obama, foreign born to a foreign father, and then again at Ted Cruz, foreign born in Canada, to a foreign father (Cuban) and a mother who married a British subject, resided in England, prior to Ted Cruz’s birth in Alberta, Canada. Both sounds familiar.

    To that point in 2000, in the United states Supreme Court Case of In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statement

    Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”

    Again, documenting that prior to 1934 the mother’s citizenship was not a determining factor.

    If you were born between May 25, 1934, and January 12, 1941, you acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had resided in the U.S. prior to your birth. The law at this time placed no additional conditions on retaining U.S. citizenship acquired in this way.

    This is the reason prior to 1934, citizenship was based solely on the father. From the founding of the nation till 1934, the father was the determining criteria and the mother was irrelevant, as documented. The framers and founders understood that children follow the condition of their father.

    Then in 1957, Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, an UN convention that entered force in 1958 and was ratified by 74 countries, protects the citizenships of women who married citizens of other countries (previously such a marriage often resulted in the loss of the woman’s original citizenship).

    I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

    Neither Acts of Congress has altered the Constitutional requirement of a Natural-Born Citizen nor as John Bingham wrote language of our Constitution, the courts have polluted the understanding and historical meaning to hide their treason.

  2. Sharon,

    FWIW, the YouTube link you posted on July 3, 2019 results in the following message:

    “Video unavailable
    This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.”

  3. I reiterate. UNLESS one is born IN the United States to parents who are BOTH [either naturalized or NBC] U.S. citizens themselves that person is NOT eligible to be President OR VP.

    The answer to the question regarding whether immigrant parents can have a Natural Born Citizen child is yes., AS LONG as they BOTH are naturalized as U.S. Citizens, before their child is born AND that child is born IN the U.S.

  4. Kamala behaves as though non-US-citizenship of her parents at her birth has nothing to do with rendering her a “natural born Citizen”, yet Ted Cruz relies on his mother’s alleged US-citizenship to render Ted a “natural born Citizen” born in Canada = unaccounted mob rule by two attorney-criminals.

    Also, Federalist Paper No. 68 designs the election of President to exclude senators and representatives, so, was it unconstitutional for second-in-line to be President, Nancy Pelosi, to even be a part of nominating Obama?

    Finally, don’t rely on any statements from non-eligible nbC fraudsters (Obama, Harris et al); simply watch their natural behavior and walk that deliberate behavior back to the brain-thinking that must have been in place to initiate such behavior. Natural bodily actions speak truer than rehearsed words. Such natural behavior, when translated into English, indicates either fraud-nbC foreign-treason-thinking or Constitutional-nbC sole-allegiance to USA-thinking.

  5. Message posted on Senator Kamala Harris website today:


    The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

    You, Kamala, are a state-licensed attorney and must obey all laws, including the U.S. Constitution, or risk sanctions, including disbarment of your license to practice law. http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/146672

    You, Kamala, are a U.S. Senator, who has sworn to follow and defend the laws of our nation, including the U.S. Constitution.

    You, Kamala, are required to be a “natural born [United States] Citizen” in order to be a Constitutional presidential candidate, incumbent president and ex-president.

    You, Kamala, are not a “natural born Citizen” since your parents were not born U.S.-citizens nor naturalized U.S. citizens at the time of your birth; similarly, Ted Cruz is not a “natural born Citizen”; I am a “natural born Citizen”, which you and Ted offensively denigrate, since I was born in Bangor, Maine in 1949 to natural born U.S. Citizens who remained my married parents until they passed away. I have sole allegiance to USA; you, Kamala, and Obama et al have natural multi-allegiances by birth and by imprinted childhood circumstances.

    You, Kamala, do not have “natural born Citizen” allegiances to only USA and its U.S. Constitution since you, fully unlike our nation’s Founding Fathers, actively think, then behave on those pre-assembled thoughts, to promote anti-U.S.-sovereignty open borders and anti-U.S.-sovereignty open White House which completely violates citizenship and allegiances requirements of a Constitutional “natural born [U.S.] Citizen”.

    Therefore, it is my belief that you, Kamala Harris, remain a sanctionable attorney-criminal and a treasonous presIDential candIDate if you willfully refuse to drop out of the race for the 2020 general election; all your citizen-supporters and election citizen-officials remain complicit with you as citizen-criminals while you willfully remain in this race. Either PROVE me wrong on your presidential “natural born Citizen” ineligibility or exit this race immediately.

    No one, be they “street citizens” or “elite citizens”, is above the law in USA, since America has “equality of justice”.

    JD Mooers, PE (MA, ME, NH, NY), MBA, MADE IN USA

  6. Hello Robert Laity,

    My last post was only about the modern bogus interpretation of the 14th Amendment that wrongly makes anchor babies like Kamala Harris statutory born citizens naturalized at birth and how, even if they are incorrectly allowed to be citizens, they are far from being natural born Citizens.

    Here is the Constitutional “right stuff” for the presidency:
    >35 years of age
    >14 years a resident of the USA
    +a born citizen
    +a natural citizen (not a statutory citizen)

    Consider that a former alien may become the equal of a natural born Citizen through the process of naturalization, but with two key characteristic differences:

    1) a natural Citizen requires no process (legal or man made) to become a citizen, and
    2) a born Citizen obviously becomes a citizen at the moment of birth.

    So a natural born Citizen must possess all the characteristics of a naturalized citizen, but do so naturally and from birth on. One must only combine the two above characteristics with those bestowed by naturalization in order to understand the essence of a natural born Citizen.

    And just what are the requirements of naturalization? In short, it is to pledge complete and exclusive fealty to our Constitution and one’s fellow citizens. That is, per the oath of citizenship, all of the following:

    1) Allegiance to the United States Constitution;
    2) Renunciation of all prior allegiances to foreign country/ies;
    3) Defense of the Constitution against enemies “foreign and domestic”;
    4) Promise to serve in the United States Armed Forces when required by law;
    5) Promise to perform civilian duties of “national importance” when required by law.

    The naturalization process excludes all conflicting allegiances. A natural born Citizen clearly must possess these same acquired traits, except that he or she must possess them naturally (without need of any law) and from the moment of birth on. Split or dual allegiance at any time in one’s life is a clearly an anathema to natural born Citizenship and is in conflict with its very essence.

    Conclusion: Based on the requirements contained in the Naturalization Act, Kamala Harris, aka obama, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley and other such hybrid citizens all who either now possess or have at one time possessed split allegiance (dual citizenship) are simply not eligible to serve their fellow citizens in the presidency.

    Note that the children of USA recognized dual citizens are not natural born Citizens.

  7. Message posted on White House and DOJ websites today:


    REMEMBER 08-28-08 !

    Next month will mark the 11th year that Nancy Pelosi, second in line to be President, committed treason by forging the passport of an unidentified foreign operative (UFO) and islamic infiltraitor, narrative Barack Hussein Obama II, on 08-28-08: https://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

    Nancy Pelosi should be in jail for treason, and yet our U.S. Government allows her to oppose President Trump in defending our faithfully neglected southern border et al, and still remain second in line to be President as U.S. Speaker of the House! https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/impeach-nancy-pelosi-crimes-treason

    Hillary RICO Clinton was allowed by our U.S. Government to run as America’s first “natural born Criminal-Citizen” !

    Now President Trump has to virtually go it alone in simply getting “Are you a U.S. Citizen” on the 2020 Census because our U.S. Government resists this declaration of citizenship!

    AG Sessions passively allowing a treason-coup to remove Trump’s Office of the President, and retires with a pension in Alabama?

    STOP the fail time, START the jail time…or we have no sovereign national boundaries and no sovereign citizenship boundaries!

    1. REVOKE FAKE EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 to unmask islamic infiltraitor, Barry Soetoro-Obama II


    3. DOJ COMMIT TO JAIL TIME JUSTICE for The Top 100 coup-treasonists of OBAMAGATE/SPYGATE

    No one is above the law INCLUDING THE DOJ and the U.S. Government, or else, we have a MONARCHY OF ANARCHY!

    Nancy-Barry-Valerie-Hillary-Comey and 95 other coup-treasonists are the SYMPTOMS; treasonist refusal to uphold enforcement of existing prescribed laws is THE PROBLEM!

  8. Thinkwell, ONLY “Natural born [U.S.] Citizen(s)” can be President or VP. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizenship. The terms of art “Citizen” and “Natural born Citizen” are not tantamount. An NBC IS one born in the United States TO parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens themselves. This is incontrovertible and has been established and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in The Venus;Shanks v Dupont;Wong Kim Ark; Minor v Happersett and has been left undisturbed in Laity v NY.,Obama and Laity v NY.,Cruz.,Rubio and Jindal. That IS what an NBC is.

  9. I tried to post this comment before, but for some reason it did not go through.

    The founders and even most politicians up through the first three fourths of the twentieth century would be aghast at the concept of anchor babies. Kamala Harris is only improperly considered a citizen at birth because of the perversion of modern courts and politicians in treating the Constitution as a “living document” so that they can interpret it however they please. This anchor baby nonsense all started with Justice William J. Brennan’s footnote in Plyler v. Doe in 1982 and was pushed into high-gear USA-destruct-mode by the evil Ted Kennedy.

    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. […]

    Consider the following two unassailable points.

    1) The text of Section 1 clearly states that it only applies to residents of a state. Illegal invaders or other temporary visitors and their spawn have no legal permanent residence in any state. They are trespassing aliens or are tourists, students, etc. whose legal permanent residence is in an alien land, not one of our states.

    2) The subject of Section 1 is citizenship, so when considering jurisdiction, only political jurisdiction is relevant. The political jurisdiction of alien invaders, tourists, students and other temporary visitors and any spawn they might happen to drop is their home country. That is where they vote, and where they are citizens. The fact that they are subject to local criminal jurisdiction is irrelevant to questions of citizenship.

    By the correct, originalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Kamala Harris should not be a citizen at all. On top of that, she was raised in Canada during her most formative years by a radical leftist single mother. She is just like aka obama, an anti-American citizen of the world.

  10. I don’t give a flip about Kamala’s ethnicity. What I care about is whether she is a Natural Born Citizen and thus eligible to be POTUS. All evidence indicates that she IS NOT. She was put on notice and asked to provide evidence of her constitutional eligibility. She has not. Her campaign to be the commander-in-chief and President of the United States is a purposeful and self-serving effort to defraud the American people. The media cheer her on and our so-called representatives sit on their hands. Dispiriting and despicable.

  11. If members of Congress ever admit they know the original and still valid meaning of “natural born citizen” they reveal their complicity in The Obama Fraud and/or its still on-going cover-up. Participating in and/or covering for a crime which effectively gave America’s government and her military to the enemy has got to be the mother of all crimes ever committed against America’s government and her citizens. It also affected many people in countries around the world and has brought us the brink of losing our Constitutional Republic……………with the final outcome uncertain.
    That it has so-far been impossible to bring justice to the many complicit in this HUGE crime should surprise no one.

  12. How President Trump can use 14th Amendment to put citizenship question back on the 2020 Census. Cite the voting rights enforcement requirement in the 14th Amendment which requires knowing the number of Citizens in a state to enforce parts of said Amendment. The word Citizen is used for that part, not just persons in a state: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/07/how_president_trump_can_use_14th_amendment_to_put_citizenship_question_back_on_the_2020_census.html It is puzzling why Trump legal beavers never thought of this Constitutional requirement before to know how many Citizens are in a state and included the Constitutional requirement in their argument to SCOTUS. I tweeted this to Donald Trump and others. I hope they go back to the courts and use this part of the 14th Amendment. Others reading this, please share it with your Senators and Reps and/or send it to President Trump again.

  13. Members of Congress and the members of the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) are SUPPOSE to know the law. Too bad all of Congress and all of the USSC do not know the difference between a natural born (U.S) Citizen and a STATUTORY U.S. citizen or are just too ornery to speak up.

    Any of you 535 Members of Congress and you black-robed nine checking-out this website need a reminder on natural born Citizenship? Here ya go:


  14. There are striking similarities between both Harris and Obama:

    1). Neither have two U.S. citizen parents.
    2). Both have British Ancestors
    3). Both do not have any claim to be descended from African-American Slaves.
    4). Both, it has been shown by research, had ancestors that owned Black slaves.
    5). Both are ineligible to be President or VP.

  15. Respectfully, Sharon, in what way did Tucker Carlson PERSONALLY mention or discuss “birtherism?” I wasn’t watching the program, so I don’t know but have my suspicions (i.e. that Tucker, a FOX NEWS anchor/lackey, would not and did not seriously and/or personally “discuss” birtherism on the air). Thanks, Sharon, and God Bless America and super patriots/journalists like yourself. Tom Arnold.