Citizen Asks DNC Chairman “Review Process” Used to Determine Kamala Harris Eligibility

“THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE RESPECTED”

September 28, 2020

Tom Perez, DNC Chair
430 South Capitol Street
Washington, D.C. 20003

***CERTIFIED MAIL***

THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER

Dear DNC Chair Tom Perez:

I am contacting you regarding your role as Chair to the Democratic National Committee, and the fact that you signed off – under penalty of perjury (sworn before a notary) – the DNC Certification of Nomination  [Attachment 1] for Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D. Harris, on August 17, 2020 – a full two days before Senator Harris was officially nominated and formally accepted said nomination.  The Certification states that both respective candidates were “legally qualified to serve as President and Vice President of the United States, respectively, under pertinent law, including the applicable provisions of the Constitution of the United States.” As to Senator Harris, this is factually and legally INACCURATE.  Proffering this document as a true and accurate representation of Senator Harris’s citizenship status constitutes a fraud on every state to which this “Certification” has been disseminated for the purpose of authorizing Harris to be placed on the general election ballot.

The United States Constitution mandates that the President (Article 2) and Vice President (12th Amendment) be NATURAL BORN citizens.  That means that the respective candidates must have been born to TWO citizen parents [Attachment 2]. Harris was born in Oakland, California in 1964, to two foreign citizen parents (father a citizen of Jamaica and mother a citizen of India).  As such, Harris can only claim NATIVE born American citizenship pursuant to the institutionalized error and unfounded interpretation of the 14th Amendment (ratified 80 years AFTER the adoption of the Constitution).  Without the 14th Amendment – which makes no mention of Natural Born citizenship – Harris would not acquire American citizenship by any law, court opinion, or amendment whatsoever. Furthermore, all evidence currently in the public domain suggests that neither of Harris’s parents were legal residents of the United States at the time of her birth, which puts into question whether Harris ever became a naturalized American citizen – a process that only applies to foreigners.  Mr. Perez, where are the official certified documents that evidence acquisition of American citizenship for Kamala Harris?

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.  This means that native-born children of legal immigrants – and thus subject to U.S. jurisdiction – are alien-born American citizens. However, native-born children of non-immigrant aliens would not be naturally subject to the American government and would therefore not acquire US citizenship at birth.  Kamala Harris falls into that category – a native-born alien born to non-immigrant parents and not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.   Because Harris would not be an American Native-born citizen, she would inherit her father’s citizenship – that of Jamaica.  No court has ever ruled that non-immigrants are also U.S. citizens.

If, for the sake of argument, we concede American citizenship to Harris based on the location of her birth, it is only possible because of a statute or positive law; namely the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.  If a law applies to one’s citizenship, then one is merely a legal citizen.  No law applies to a Natural Born citizen since such citizenship comes from inheritance, and no group of lawmakers can convey citizenship on one whose citizenship is already theirs by unalienable right, i.e., NATURAL LAW.

Regardless as to whether a case can be made for statutory 14th Amendment citizenship, Jamaican law makes it clear that Kamala Harris was born with every right and privilege of Jamaican citizenship through descent from her father [Attachment 3].  Because India does not allow dual citizenship, Harris would not be afforded a third citizenship (through her mother).  It is irrefutable, that Kamala Harris was born with conflicting allegiances and was subject to foreign influence.  She is not, nor can she ever be, a NATURAL BORN citizen.

Mr. Perez, the first seven presidents were not NATURAL BORN citizens.  How could they be? Their parents were foreigners and they only acquired American citizenship upon the adoption of the Constitution.   And yet, they were still constitutionally eligible because of the grandfather clause in Article II.   The grandfather clause would not have been necessary if “citizen” and “natural born citizen” meant the same thing.  These ongoing efforts by both parties to conflate citizen with NATURAL born citizen – and run constitutionally INELIGIBLE candidates – must stop.  The NATURAL BORN citizen language was put in the Constitution for a purpose: to ensure that no one with foreign influence or allegiances could become the commander-in-chief of the military.

Since the turn of the 21st century, there have been numerous attempts to change the meaning of Natural Born Citizen [Attachment No. 4]. All these attempts have failed. However, that has not stopped an ongoing assault on the Constitution, which has resulted in several unconstitutional candidates running for POTUS from BOTH parties in 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020.

It is time the United States Supreme Court put a stop to these ever-increasing efforts to ignore the plain purpose and clear meaning of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.  Failure to act is a disservice to all Americans and endangers our national security.

On behalf of every American voter, exactly what review process was taken by you and the DNC to vet Senator Harris? What documents were reviewed and what interviews were conducted with the candidate and others to establish her citizenship status?

The Constitution must be respected. The only two jobs in the United States that require Natural Born Citizenship are the President and Vice President. Kamala Harris clearly does not meet this constitutional requirement and must be removed from the ballots in all fifty states.

Sincerely,

Gary M. Wilmott
(Email address redacted for publication)

Attachments (4)

cc: Kamala Harris (U.S. Certified Mail)

Attachment 1 Perez DNC Certification 08.17.20

Attachment 2 Supreme Court Cases NBC

Attachment 3 Jamaican Constitution

Attachment 4 Attempts to Re-define NBC

 

48 Responses to "Citizen Asks DNC Chairman “Review Process” Used to Determine Kamala Harris Eligibility"

  1. Michael Britten   Monday, October 5, 2020 at 10:21 AM

    “The founders considered themselves to be the “original Citizens” of the United States created by the Declaration of Independence and the creation of the new nation”

    Jay’s letter says “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.” If the Founders did not consider themselves to be NBCs who did he invision being commander in chief? Note he does not suggest making an allowance for the older generation and he couldn’t know they would create a grandfather clause.

    Reply
    1. Gary Wilmott   Monday, October 5, 2020 at 2:52 PM

      You know the answer to your question which is ridiculous on it’s face, given all the history and information that has been presented and discussed on this site for years. As to your last sentence, what does it even mean?

      Reply
  2. Schuyler Colfax   Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 1:23 PM

    Any response yet from Perez? Or Judge Sullivan?

    Reply
    1. Gary Wilmott   Monday, October 5, 2020 at 3:05 PM

      As to Perez, the letter was sent via certified mail with delivery guaranteed by Oct. 3 and also by email on Sept. 28. I highly doubt there will be any response. The primary purpose of the letter is to establish a public record and to encourage other citizens to write or call the DNC with their objections to the Harris candidacy.

      Reply
  3. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM

    Email sent to White House and DOJ today:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
    https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice/done?sid=13310466&token=6122baac370091585085c9e70e77a9be

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/03/trump-appoints-larry-elder-tom-fitton-to-trump-administration/

    Obama+Kamala never were, never are, and never will be a “natural born Citizen” (nbC)- 1787

    Now, Tom Fitton of JUDICIAL Watch and John Durham of Department of JUSTICE can hitch their patriotic notoriety to the knowledge of 11 continuous years of research on “natural born Citizen” within the fingertip-accessible archives of The Post & Email.

    John Durham resides in Groton, CT, some 30 miles from The Post & Email’s office in Canterbury, CT. I HAVE A DREAM that Sharon Rondeau, owner of The Post & Email, and John Durham and Tom Fitton will connect for a P&E interview = THE CONNECTICUT CONNECTION, that includes PROOF, NOT SPOOF, of Obama’s forged CT SSN et al!

    https://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/01/stipulation-to-produce-obamas-ssn-application-sent-to-doj-attorneys/

    John Jay, America’s first Supreme Court Chief Justice, invented “natural born Citizen” in 1787, and further led to its restrictions during the New York Ratifying Convention of 1788: http://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/john-jay-on-natural-born-citizenship.html

    Jay also endorsed “President and Vice-president” to distance USA from foreign kings, prime ministers et al.

    Jay’s nbC-1787 is Jay’s nbC-2020 because the 27 Constitutional Amendments never re-defined Jay’s original invention.

    “natural born Citizen” 1787 = “born natural Citizen” 2020 = born in US jurisdiction to laws of nature parents = born in and subject to sole US jurisdiction to natural US citizen-parents WITH NO OTHER MAN-MADE CLAIMS OF CITIZENSHIP TO THOSE THREE PERSONS
    EXHIBIT A: https://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/All-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud

    WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT DID NANCY PELOSI HAVE IN CERTIFYING OBAMA II TO BE AN INELIGIBLE presIDent on 08-28-08?

    STOP RELYING on RE-LYING! JAIL OBAMA II+BIDEN II+KAMALA, TOO for nbC-COUP!

    Reply
  4. Michael Britten   Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 10:30 PM

    Please let me rephrase my previous post as it appears to have confused some people.

    Questions for Mr. DeMaio.

    Vattel was translated as the natives or natural born citizens are born in the country to two citizen parents.

    Does that mean that natives and natural born citizens means the same thing?

    Does it also mean that native-born citizens are not natural born citizens?

    I think that is where some confusion lies.

    Finally, did the Founders consider themselves to be natives or natural born citizens of the United States?

    Reply
    1. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 12:36 AM

      To Michael:

      Vattel defined what he meant when he said “natives”, which in his French edition the word he used was “indigenous”. He did not say in the English edition “native-born”. It said “natives”. And he told us what he meant. He did not use it as identically equal to the term “native born”, as you are interjecting, or as one would interpret the term “native born” today. In today’s terminology “natural born Citizens” are the largest subset of “native born Citizens”. But not all “native born Citizens” are “natural born Citizens” as we look at those terms in today’s context. If you need more on basic logic and set and subsets see: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/euler-diagram/

      Again the complete sentence by Vattel tells us what Vattel meant in the original context of the complete sentence when he wrote it in the time he wrote it. The use of that word elsewhere in some other context or time frame does not change what Vattel meant when he used it in his treatise in the context of his sentence in the time frame he wrote it: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/

      This is the concept of “originalism”. If something was not clearly defined when it was written in the context it was written then we must determine what they meant using the principles of “originalism”. But that is not necessary for what Vattel wrote as he defined what he meant for the words he used when he used them in that sentence.

      Words and term meanings at times change with context and time. Compare the word “Federalist” as used and meaning today to “Federalist” as used and meant in the founding era, i.e., in the context of “he is a Federalist”. But when someone specifically defines what they say a word or term means in the same sentence it is used, then they are defining it in the context they used it, and thus why would you be questioning what Vattel meant.

      As to what the founders considered themselves to be in the context of Vattel’s sentence from which picked out a segment, the answer is neither. The USA did not exist when the founders were born. The founders considered themselves to be the “original Citizens” of the United States created by the Declaration of Independence and the creation of the new nation: https://www.scribd.com/document/36590701/Ramsay-1789-Dissertation-on-Citizenship … and … https://www.scribd.com/document/33676461/Founder-and-Historian-David-Ramsay-Defined-Natural-Born-Citizenship-in-1789-by-Atty-Mario-Apuzzo

      CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

      Reply
    2. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 12:59 AM

      Michael:

      On the subject of this article, i.e., Kamala Harris’ citizenship status and eligibility, there is doubt she is even really a “Citizen” at all, if her birth circumstances were carefully examined in a court of law. Thus, one cannot be a native-born Citizen if she was not even a Citizen when she was born. And not all native born Citizens are natural born Citizens as has been explained to you via: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/euler-diagram/

      It is argued that she was not really a Citizen of the United States since her parents were aliens and foreign nationals and not even immigrants to the USA, when Kamala Harris was born in CA in 1964. Her parents were merely temporarily sojourning in the USA on student VISAs. Thus her parents were not under the full political jurisdiction of the United States. Kamala Harris was born to foreign nationals temporarily here. But there is no question that Kamala Harris was born a Citizen of Jamaica at Birth via her Jamaican Citizen, non-immigrant, foreign national father and as such Kamala owed homage and allegiance to her Sovereign the Queen of Jamaica, who was also the Queen of England: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/09/19/kamala-harris-owes-homage-and-allegiance-to-queen-of-jamaica/

      Michael, does that not concern you at all? Kamala was born with foreign citizenship, innate allegiance to a foreign country, and attendant foreign influence on her by birth. Do you think that the founders and framers intended future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs (and per the 1804 12th Amendment) to be allowed to be a Citizen of a foreign nation at birth? The letter in 1787 by John Jay to George Washington and Article II Section 1 Clause 5 tells us they did not wish that. So tell us if Kamala being born with foreign citizenship concerns you.

      Reply
      1. Michael Britten   Monday, October 5, 2020 at 10:26 AM

        “does that not concern you at all? Kamala was born with foreign citizenship,”

        Does not concern me at all. Just as I was not concerned about McCain, Rubio, or Cruz allegiance and I am also not concerned about Haley or duckworth allegiance.

        The laws of other countries do not concern me.

        Reply
  5. Jeffrey Harrison   Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 7:20 PM

    My congressman GT Thompson had stated to me that the issue of Obama was “water under
    the bridge”. Really? Others have remained mute, knowing the truth and taking no corrective action. Well, water does have a way of recycling. For such a “dead subject” it just won’t die. It must be that NBC is what it is. Indeed, it is quite obvious. Truth / reality eventually comes to the surface. In Trumps second term, I expect a strong result on this issue. Justice in this matter is coming. Fear Not. Other be scared, payment will be due. Hopefully, Trump will win election
    and justice will be served.

    Reply
  6. Michael Britten   Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 1:50 PM

    Questions for Mr. DeMaio.

    Vattel was translated as the natives or natural born citizens are born to two citizen parents.

    Does that mean that natives and natural born citizens means the same thing?

    Does it also mean that native-born citizens are not natural born citizens?

    I think that is where some confusion lies.

    Finally, did the Founders consider themselves to be natives or natural born citizens of the United States?

    Reply
    1. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 6:44 PM

      I am not Mr. DeMaio, but please allow me take a stab at your questions.

      I am no immigration expert, but I am a natural born Citizen of the USA, because I was born in the state of Minnesota to two humble parents who were US citizens. Therefore, I am a native of Minnesota and a member of the USA. That’s for starters. OK? So now you know that I am both a native and a natural born Citizen who is eligible for the office of the president of the USA.

      Now, let’s breakdown the word “Native”:
      Native could mean indigenous, first, or pertain to a location of your birth as was mine. I reckon the word “nativity” is a form of the the word “native”. Lots of options here. But what IF neither of my parents were US citizens when I was born in Minnesota? Hey, I’d still be a native of Minnesota, but if I was born prior to the first misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, I would not have been “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the state of Minnesota and also not a member of the USA, so then I would not be a US citizen, but instead a citizen (or subject) of the country of that of my parents. I would probably enjoy, if any was to be had, dual foreign citizenship if my parents had different country citizenships, but again, I could never be a citizen of the USA – at birth.

      Now, lets talk about the scenario if I was born in Minnesota to one US citizen parent and one Hungarian citizen parent. This scenario doesn’t matter which parent is the US citizen. This is an instance of horseshoes, where “close” does count. This “close” is the fact that one of my parents is a US citizen, so I win a point of being a “STATUTORY” US citizen according to US naturalization laws. I get an extra point for being a native. Yayyy! High-five and all that jive. But hold-on, my bingo card is not complete, because I am not a natural born Citizen, because [may I cry now?] one of my parents is NOT a US citizen, but instead that of a foreign country. NOTE: Never allow a politician to tell you that they can make anyone a “natural born Citizen” through any naturalization law, because they would be lying.

      Recap: A natural born Citizen is a person born in the country of the USA [50 states + DC and nowhere else] to two parents who are already US citizens. The parents can both be STATUTORY US citizens, both can be natural born Citizens, or the two parents can be a combination of the two. And yes, a native to-boot.

      Reply
    2. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 7:12 PM

      Our Founding Fathers/Framers were subjects of England and natives of the states where they were born prior to July 4, 1776.

      After July 4, 1776, our Founding Fathers/Framers were STATUTORY USofA citizens in accordance with the official legal document called the Declaration of Independence, but not natural born Citizens.

      The children born in the USA to the above US citizens in paragraph 2 were natural born Citizens.

      Reply
    3. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 7:27 PM

      In Vattel’s use of the phrase natives or natural born Citizens he did indeed tell you what he meant if you only would have included the rest of the sentence, which you conveniently omitted. Vattel told you what he meant. We cannot use the meanings of words as we want them to mean when the author of the treatise tells you exactly what he meant. This is what Vattel said in the full sentence which you parsed out a segment to try and create confusion as to what Vattel meant: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” See: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ So don’t speculate or guess, read what Vattel said. Your tactics are not as clever as you think you are.

      CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

      Reply
  7. thomas arnold   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:29 PM

    To: Wilford Brimley. You are correct- Obama’s assumed father was never a US citizen. I think everyone knows that. And, evidently, there were some court decisions which held (erroneously) that it did not matter. However, I SAY IT MATTERS THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, MOST LIKELY KENYA WHERE HIS 1991 BIO SAID HE WAS BORN. AND, TOO, THAT FACT REMAINED IN PRINT AND UNCONTESTED FOR SIXTEEN YEARS UNTIL 2007. DO YOU THINK OBAMA FAILED TO PROOFREAD HIS OWN BIO (ACTUALLY, OF COURSE, HE PROBABLY WROTE IT OR PROVIDED THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION IN IT FOR THE PUBLISHER). Why do you think Obama presented a FORGED HAWAIIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE to the public when pressed on the subject by then citizen Donald Trump? Why did Obama have other falsified credentials? Why does everyone in our capitol who has seriously looked into this call it the “OPEN SECRET?” If Obama truly was constitutionally qualified under Article 2 to be president, then WHY ALL THE CONTROVERSY OVER A DECADE LATER? I prefer to believe what my common sense (and law enforcement career) tells me! And, by the way, I am a registered INDEPENDENT voter from a long family line of Democrats! Sincerely, Thomas Arnold.

    Reply
    1. yogiman   Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 6:56 PM

      Even if he was a natural born citizen, he lost that status when he was given naturalized citizenship by Indonesia as a child. And if so, once you lo0se it, you cannot get it back.

      But, too, I’ve never read, nor heard, of him becoming a naturalized citizen of the USA after becoming a naturalized citizen of Indonesia.

      Reply
      1. Pat Novak   Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 8:58 PM

        You cannot lose US citizenship without renouncing it. A child cannot renounce his citizenship. Obama was not “given Indonesian citizenship as a child” and even if that were true it would not remove his US citizenship. This was all debunked years ago.

        Reply
        1. Gary Wilmott   Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:58 PM

          You are incorrect. The government can remove statutory citizenship. NATURAL BORN citizenship cannot be removed because it is an unalienable right pursuant to NATURAL law.

        2. Michael Britten   Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 3:17 PM

          “The government can remove statutory citizenship.”

          Congress can put restricts for obtaining citizenship by birth outside the United States to citizen parents but they cannot revoke citizenship for someone born under the 14th amendment.

  8. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:28 PM

    Not only were Kamala Harris’ parents non-U.S. Citizens when she was born in 1964 in CA, they were also NON-immigrants too. They had not applied for immigrant status at that time and were simply sojourning in the USA on temporary student VISAs. In their lives they had not even decided they would be staying in the USA. See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/08/10/is-kamala-harris-eligible-to-be-joe-bidens-vp-by-gary-wilmott-americanthinker/ Kamala claim to even being an ordinary Citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment and eligibility to serve as a U.S. Senator simply based on her location of birth deserves an in-depth serious inquiry by the major media. She should be asked by the major media about that. But I doubt that will happen since our major media is in on the abrogation of the presidential eligibility clause, and via the 12th Amendment the eligibility requirements for VP. They will run cover for her and have already. See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/08/10/is-kamala-harris-eligible-to-be-joe-bidens-vp-by-gary-wilmott-americanthinker/

    The major media should also ask Kamala Harris about her citizenship at birth to Jamaica via inheritance from her foreign national, Jamaican citizen father, when she was born in CA: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/09/19/kamala-harris-owes-homage-and-allegiance-to-queen-of-jamaica/

    CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

    Reply
  9. Gary Wilmott   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 5:10 PM

    Leftists and Obama sycophants are incorrigible.

    Reply
    1. Hannibal Hamilton   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 9:27 PM

      How would it be “incorrigible” “fraud” for Perez to rely on those eligibility cases that would support his conclusion that Harris is eligible?

      Reply
      1. Gary M Wilmott   Friday, October 2, 2020 at 2:24 AM

        There is no vetting of the candidates. Perez didn’t vet Harris. He’s not interested at looking at documents or doing any research on eligibility. Heck the two Certifications from the Convention Chair and DNC Party Chair were signed and notarized 7 and 2 days respectively, BEFORE Harris’s nomination and acceptance on August 19. The Left has long ago abandoned the idea of respecting the Constitution.

        Reply
  10. Wilford Brimley   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 2:01 PM

    Here are 10 cases on birthright citizenship decided since 2008, all of which say that a person born in the US is a citizen at birth REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF HIS/HER PARENTS:

    ANKENY V. GOVERNOR OF INDIANA
    “Thus, the Court [Minor v. Happersett] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen… The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.’ They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history………Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010)

    ALLEN V. OBAMA
    “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d983, 986 (1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’sassertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”Allen v. Obama et al., No. C20121046 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct. Feb. 24, 2012)

    TISDALE V. OBAMA “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3:12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012), aff’d, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir. Jun 5,2012) (per curiam)6 The Literary Digest, Vol. XVIII, “Citizenship in the United States”, pp. 185-86.10

    PURPURA V. OBAMA “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” Purpura v. Obama, No. STE 04534-12, 2012 WL 1369003 (N.J. Adm. Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision),decision adopted as final (NJ Secy of State Apr. 12, 2012), aff’d, No. A-004478-11-T03, 2012 WL1949041 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 31, 2012) (per curiam).

    FARRAR V. OBAMA “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to thosebefore this court. [Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.” Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3,2012), decision adopted as final (Ga. Sec’y State Feb. 7, 2012).

    PAIGE V. OBAMA “While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase– ”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” –has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thisfar, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact,the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”Paige v. Obama, No. 611-8-12 WNCV (Vt. Super. Ct. Nov. 14, 2012).

    VOELTZ V. OBAMA (I & II) “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Othercourts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”Voeltz v. Obama (“Voeltz I”), No. 37 2012 CA 000467, 2012 WL 2524874 (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 29, 2012). “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” Voeltz v. Obama (“Voeltz II”), No. 37 2012 CA 002063, 2012 WL 4117478 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 6, 2012).

    FAIR V. OBAMA “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case.” Fair v. Obama, No. 06C12060692 (Md. Carroll Cty. Cir. Ct., Aug. 27, 2012).

    HOLLANDER V. MCCAIN “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008).

    Reply
    1. Gary M Wilmott   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 4:07 PM

      Wilford? You are conflating “citizen” and “NATURAL born citizen”. Please.

      Reply
      1. Hannibal Hamilton   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 5:03 PM

        Every of one those cases concerned presidential eligibility, and all but one expressly used the term “natural born citizen.”

        Reply
        1. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:14 PM

          To show how ignorant the Ankeny case Judge was of the founders and framers original meaning and intent for their selection of the “natural born Citizen” term for presidential eligibility in order to be a strong check against foreign influence at birth for the highest office of the land, in a footnote of that case the Judge called Emer De Vattel a little known philosopher. The founders and framers of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson knew of Vattel very well and used his treatise very much in creating a new nation and writing the founding documents. See: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html for one example and links therein for more examples. That shows one how uneducated today even Judges are in regards to the founding of our nation and framing of our documents. Even Hillary Clinton spoke highly of Emer de Vattel and his importance to the founding of our nation and founding documents. See: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3224507/Vattel-s-Influence-on-U-S-Founders-Constitution-s-Framers And then like cowards many of the other lower court decisions cited used the incorrectly decided Ankeny case as an excuse to hide behind in their respective decisions. Such is the nature of our judiciary today, a lack of knowledge about our founding and framing and no willingness to stand up for their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

          CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

        2. Des Courtney   Friday, October 2, 2020 at 1:08 AM

          CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ” in a footnote of that case the Judge called Emer De Vattel a little known philosopher.”

          Are you referring to the lower courts ruling or the Indiana Appeals Court ruling?

          If you are referring to the lower court’s decision – Do you have a link to it?

          If you are referring to the appeals court’s decision – you are mistake. Only two mentions of Vattel occur and neither refers to him as “a little known philosopher”. I do not find him or the Law of Nations mentioned in any of the footnotes.

          The two references are:

          1) “an eighteen century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations”” page 12

          2) “they primarily rely instead on an eighteen century treatise” page18

        3. Sharon Rondeau   Friday, October 2, 2020 at 7:06 AM

          Do you have a link to it?

        4. Michael Britten   Friday, October 2, 2020 at 9:41 AM

          I think this is a link to the appeals court ruling.

          https://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1501011.html

      2. Wilford Brimley   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 5:03 PM

        I’m not saying anything at all, I’m just listing prior court decisions. Everyone knew — everyone from George W. Bush to his Attorney General to the entire Supreme Court — it was no secret at all, and instead was widely publicized before the 2008 election — that Barack H. Obama’s father was never a US citizen. A lot of lawsuits were filed claiming that made him ineligible. Ten separate courts across the US ruled that his father’s citizenship was IRRELEVANT, and not one single court ruled that he was ineligible. But those are just facts, not my opinion. I’m reserving my opinion.

        Reply
    2. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 5:33 PM

      The Founding Fathers/Framers constructed a U.S. Constitution as a strict guideline of authority, written in plain English with plenty of comma punctuation symbols.

      The U.S. Constitution authorizes the U.S. Congress to make laws of naturalization as cited in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. To wit: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;” NOTE: The word “citizen” is not listed within this Section 8 of naturalization authority, so one must look at the uncontested naturalization laws on the books to find out how “citizens” are made or derived through positive law.

      The below listed government websites state citizenship laws in effect as of September 30, 2020 and also gives guidance how one may acquire US citizenship.
      https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship
      https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1401&num=0&edition=prelim

      As I combed through the text and additional links at the above websites, I could find no information that a person born to two non-US citizen parents is eligible for US citizenship.

      Also, I could find no information at these websites that unequivocally states that any US citizen under naturalization law(s) IS a natural born Citizen. Why? Because the US Congress can only grant statutory US citizenship as authorized by the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.

      A natural born Citizen IS a US citizen through no positive law, but by the very natural act of being born IN the country to two US citizen parents (sole allegiance to the USA). This specification ensures that no foreign country can claim this offspring as their own.

      Technically, all US citizens are made only two ways – natural born Citizens (born in the USA to two citizen parents who are US citizens) and plain-vanilla statutory US citizens via man-made Congressional laws, as authorized by the US Constitution.

      Statutory US citizens are not natural born Citizens. Stated differently, Congress cannot make anyone a natural born Citizen.

      NOTE: The US Constitution contains only one instance of the word: “naturalization”, only one instance of the word: “natural”, and eleven (11) instances of the word: “citizen”. What should that mean to women who want to enter the US (legally or illegally) as aliens and download their baby on US soil?

      The 14th Amendment contains a very dynamic phrase: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. When that phrase was enacted after complete ratification of the 14th Amendment, that meant that the people known as Indians (aka Native Americans), were Constitutionally not included in the 14th Amendment. So, any time thereafter, any Indian baby born within their tribal or their Indian nation did not acquire US citizenship. It took a later law to include Indians as US citizens.

      On June 2, 1924, President Calvin Coolidge signed a bill granting Native Americans full citizenship. The Indians weren’t allowed automatic US citizenship between the ratification of Amendment 14 and June 2, 1924, so why should all the world’s people be allowed US citizenship merely through birth on US soil?

      Bottom Line: Illegal alien pregnant baby machines and all foreigners legally here in the US should never have the legal authority to make someone a US citizen merely by giving birth to them in the USA.

      Reply
    3. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 5:47 PM

      Of “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens at birth” and Basic Logic: Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “natural born Citizens (NBC)” are “Citizens at birth (CAB)” but not all “CAB” are “NBC”! https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

      Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relationship of a Constitutional Article II “natural born Citizen” to Other Kinds of “Citizens” of the United States https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/euler-diagram/

      CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

      Reply
    4. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 8:40 PM

      These lower court judges below the U.S. Supreme Court, under political bias and pressures being imposed indirectly on them by both major political parties and the major media, got it wrong, as they often have in recent years and decades, in the progressive era, when it comes to the originalism meaning of the words and terms in the U.S. Constitution. They either want to make the meaning evolve as in a living constitution way or keep it silenced by not taking cases and deflecting germaine cases from getting to the U.S. Supreme Court on technicalities. They are also engaging in conflating the terms “Citizen”, “native born Citizen”, and “natural born Citizen”, willfully or out of ignorance. Adjectives mean something. Set theory and logic also helps sort it out for people who cannot see the differences that adjectives before a noun, convey to a noun. The judges in the lower courts willfully or ignorantly failed on basic logic and the meaning of words and role of adjectives. As said before, they conflated words and terms that logically are not identically the same. See the following essays of basic logic and some on the citizenship terms under discussion.

      Of “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens at birth” and Basic Logic: Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “natural born Citizens (NBC)” are “Citizens at birth (CAB)” but not all “CAB” are “NBC”! https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

      Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relationship of a Constitutional Article II “natural born Citizen” to Other Kinds of “Citizens” of the United States https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/euler-diagram/

      And the U.S. Supreme Court as Justice Thomas stated in public … is avoiding the issue. And they are avoiding the issue because they know the true answer and have chosen not to address it out of political fear. IMO, someone has dirt on the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and is leveraging it based on some of this avoidance and some other decisions he has made over the last decade or so. Until the U.S. Supreme Court takes on the issue directly, the controversy will continue and the political parties and the media will keep pushing the limits on running people born with foreign influence, foreign allegiance, and multiple citizenship for high political office to gain control of the Oval Office or personage in waiting for the Oval Office.

      CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

      Reply
      1. Hannibal Hamilton   Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:12 AM

        The RNC indirectly pressured these courts to rule that Obama was eligible? And the RNC is intentionally not challenging Harris’ eligibility? Is Ronna Romney McDaniel aware of this situation?

        Reply
        1. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:16 PM

          Absolutely. Both parties stifled the truth. The RNC has a stable of constitutionally ineligible candidates that they want to run. The fix was in on abrogating the “natural born Citizen” true meaning of the presidential eligibility by both major political parties. See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/i-believe-the-fix-was-in-for-the-2008-election-and-the-cover-up-is-still-going-strong-the-perfect-storm-for-a-constitutional-crisis/

          CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

        2. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Friday, October 2, 2020 at 8:06 PM

          The shoehorn that enabled the “right” foot and the “left” foot of ineligible presidential candidates in 2008 was Senate Resolution 511 that claimed the now-deceased US Senator John S. McCain was a natural born Citizen – so proclaimed by the other 99 US Senators based on a repealed immigration law of 1790. Meanwhile, no similar proclamation of natural born Citizenship was declared about the undocumented alien, aka Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

  11. Gary Wilmott   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 12:32 PM

    To “Atticus Finch”: You have provided numerous examples that completely eviscerate the premise you articulate in your closing paragraph. Talk about gobbledygook.

    Reply
  12. Bob Russell   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:50 AM

    Harris IS NOT eligible, and neither was obama, and democrats know it but don’t care. All they care about is getting control and turning us over to the New World Order, a satanic dictatorship pushed and financed by Nazi war criminal george soros and his cabal of communist billionaires.

    Reply
  13. Atticus Finch   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:29 AM

    Numerous Federal court opinions make no distinction between natural born citizen and native-born citizen and, in fact, they use the term “natural born citizen” solely in reference to place of birth without explanation. The court in Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 US 86, 98 (1973) noted: “Mrs. Espinoza is a permanent resident alien, married to an American citizen, and her children will be native-born American citizens.” In another case, the court in US v. Singh, 94 F. Supp. 2d 540, 542-543(M.D. Pa 1999) remarked: “Singh was born in India on January 23, 1962, and was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on February 25, 1986. He is married to a naturalized American citizen and has three native born American children, ages 13, 10, and 7.” Similarly the court in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US 144,149 (1963) acknowledged: “Cort, the appellee in No. 3, is also a native-born American, born in Boston in 1927.”

    As such, the term “native born citizen” has no legal significance in America’s jurisprudence. American courts have been using the term “natural born citizen” and “native born citizen” interchangeably since the founding of this nation with apparent no legal distinction between the two terms. In fact, the United States Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325, 350 (1939) used the terms “natural born” and native born” in the same paragraph in reference to the child born in the United States to alien parents: “…. according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her NATIVE BORN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.” Id at 349-350

    Justice Douglas in Schneider v. Rush, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) used both phrases when he observed: “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the NATIVE BORN and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “NATURAL BORN” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.” Id at 165 (emphasis added)

    “The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866) (Miller, J., dissenting)

    “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913) (internal citations omitted)

    Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”

    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II,§ 1. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)

    In another Supreme Court case, Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665 (1944) Justice Frankfurter equated native citizen with natural born citizen when he wrote:

    “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency” Id. at 673

    It is noteworthy that American courts had never made a factual distinction between native born and natural born Americans because these terms are interchangeable.

    Reply
    1. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 12:51 PM

      Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided No It Was Not! https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/09/17/constitution-day-17-sep-2020-a-lesson-from-history-is-being-a-born-citizen-of-the-united-states-sufficient-citizenship-status-to-be-president-the-founders-and-framers-emphatically-decided-no-it-w/

      CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

      Reply
    2. Sharon Rondeau   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 12:59 PM

      Reply from Joseph DeMaio:

      “If all that ‘Atticus Finch’ says is correct, then why did the Founders deem it necessary to specifically differentiate and distinguish between a ‘citizen’ – who was a ‘native-born’ person – and a ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Eligibility Clause itself, Art. 2 § 1, Cl. 5?”

      Reply
    3. Harry Bosch   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 3:40 PM

      There are dozen of examples of the term native born being equivalent to natural born.

      For example:

      “ …in order to be president of the United States a person must be a naive-born citizen” Senator Trumball, 1871
      https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=099/llcg099.db&recNum=690

      “The Constitution requires that the President must be a native-born citizen of the United States. No one wishes to change that.” Senator Sherman, 1869

      “Here at home our laws know no distinction between the rights of the native-born and naturalized citizen, except in two particulars, that the President and Vice-President must be native-born” Rep. Clarke, 1868
      https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/080/0000/00851105.tif

      Reply
  14. Gary Wilmott   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 7:45 AM

    Because their allegiances and loyalty is first and foremost to the country(ies) of their parents, namely that of the father. That is their true citizenship. Neither should be considered as American citizens at birth, but if we concede citizenship per the 14th Amendment, then that person cannot be NATURAL BORN as it is statutory provision of the Constitution (an Amendment ratified 80 years AFTER the adoption if the Constitution) which affords merely NATIVE born citizenship.

    Reply
    1. Roger Murtaugh   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 1:50 PM

      This doesn’t answer my question.

      If native born children of legally permanent immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, why or how are native born children of legal non-immigrants not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

      It seems to me both are equally subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

      Reply
  15. Roger Murtaugh   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 2:25 AM

    “This means that native-born children of legal immigrants – and thus subject to U.S. jurisdiction – are alien-born American citizens. However, native-born children of non-immigrant aliens would not be naturally subject to the American government and would therefore not acquire US citizenship at birth.”

    How is one group (native-born children of legal immigrants) subject to U.S. jurisdiction but the other group (native-born children of non-immigrant aliens) not subject to U.S. jurisdiction?

    Reply
  16. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 1:51 AM

    Kamala Harris is Not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and is NOT Constitutionally Eligible to be President and Commander in Chief, or the VP (per the 12th Amendment): https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/07/23/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-not-eligible-to-be-president-and-cinc-or-vp/

    Kamala Harris Was Born a Dual-Citizen (if she actually qualifies for U.S. Citizenship due to her parents only being in USA on temp VISAs) and For Certain Owes Homage and Allegiance to Queen of Jamaica by Birth: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/09/19/kamala-harris-owes-homage-and-allegiance-to-queen-of-jamaica/

    CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

    Reply
  17. Gary Wilmott   Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 11:52 PM

    To EVERYONE who reads my letter, please feel free to disseminate far and wide. Please forward to all your friends and enemies on your email lists and please circulate with any and all media outlets that you can think of. If you have websites, blogs, social media sites please share. This woman is a nasty, leftist, unprincipled power hungry, race-baiting leftist who doesn’t give a damn about you. The fact that she has been placed in this position to do the bidding of Obama and the globalist elites should scare everyone. Harris has no respect for the Constitution or the protections that it provides to the American people.. The fact that she is constitutionally INELIGIBLE must be addressed. Please get this out there! Otherwise it will be ignored. Kamala Harris is a phony and a fraud.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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