If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

LoboStudioHamburg, Pixabay, License

(Oct. 20, 2020) — Constitutional activist and P&E reader Robert C. Laity reported Tuesday morning that Facebook would not allow him to post a link to our article published Monday titled, “U.S. Senator Claims ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Renders Harris Eligible.”

A graphical version of the message Laity received prohibiting his sharing of the link is below.

The move comes as Facebook and Twitter have been accused of widespread censorship in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and, more specifically, last week after The New York Post released emails from what it said was a laptop computer allegedly having belonged to Hunter Biden, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son.  The emails allegedly demonstrate the elder Biden’s knowledge of and participation in his son’s overseas business dealings, including in Ukraine, during the time he served as the Obama regime’s “point man” on Ukraine and after denying any knowledge of Hunter’s pursuits.

Without any experience, Hunter Biden served for “several years” on the board of directors of Burisma Holdings, Inc., a Ukrainian energy firm acknowledged by the Obama State Department as likely immersed in corruption. The younger Biden was paid “as much as $50,000 per month to serve on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company with a corrupt owner, while his father was the public face of the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy,” states a recent joint report by the Republican-led Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Committee on Finance.

As of Monday, Twitter had not unlocked The Post‘s Twitter account, according to The Epoch TimesThe Post‘s own reporting Tuesday invokes its shuttered account without noting a change in status.

Earlier this year, YouTube, which is owned by Google, announced that it would not permit the uploading of video content raising questions about “eligibility” or suggestive of what it called “birtherism.”

When in August Joe Biden announced California Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate, questions were raised about her constitutional eligibility to serve given that although she was born in the United States on October 20, 1964, her parents may not have been “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at the time, as stated in the 14th Amendment for U.S. citizenship.

When Kamala was born in Oakland, CA 56 years ago today, her mother was a citizen of India attending the University of California, Berkeley, on a student visa.  Her father, Donald J. Harris, then a citizen of Jamaica, was attending the same institution on a scholarship and student visa.  He reportedly applied for permanent residency in 1967 and at some point became a U.S. citizen, according to his biography at Stanford University.

There is no evidence that Shyamala Gopalan Harris, who passed away in 2009, ever became a U.S. citizen.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born Citizen,” and the 12th Amendment requires vice-presidential candidates to meet all of the requirements for the presidency.

Our article published Monday contains a letter from the office of U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) to constituent Jeffrey Harrison in response to Harrison’s expressed doubt as to Harris’s eligibility. Toomey contended, without presenting any evidence, that Harris’s parents were “immigrants” when, in fact, documents released by @kamalakancel appear to show that in 1964, neither had applied for legal permanent residency nor anything approaching U.S. citizenship.

Over the years the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen,” both found in the U.S. Constitution, have been conflated by the media, academia, members of Congress and the Congressional Research Service.  There is, however, abundant evidence that the citizenship of the parents at the time of a person’s birth was historically a factor when determining whether or not the individual met the requirements for a U.S. citizen, or, going further, for a “natural born Citizen.”

Many who contend Harris is eligible to serve as vice president or president cite the case of Wong Kim Ark, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Ark was a U.S. citizen, having been born in San Francisco to legally-“domiciled” Chinese-citizen parents. Prior to the 1898 ruling, an individual born in the United States to foreign-citizen parents was not considered a citizen, much as children born within the United States to foreign diplomats are not given U.S. citizenship today.

Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had pledged to hold a vote this week on issuing subpoenas to the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter, and Google to demand answers on the reports of censorship, which have come from members of the media; Dr. Scott Atlas, a member of the White House Coronavirus Advisory Team; Dr. Simone Gold, founder of “America’s Frontline Doctors”; and other citizens engaged in legal political activity.

That vote has now been “delayed,” The Post reported Tuesday morning.

Laity himself was locked out of Twitter for a time, he told The Post & Email earlier this year.

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. One need not even need address natural born citizen in Mrs. Harris case. There is sufficient evidence that she was not a citizen at birth. Neither of her parents was a permanent legal resident on her birth (I have government documents proving that) a necessary part of the finding of Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship at birth. Additionally, per the 1962 Jamaican Constitution, she was a Jamaican citizen at birth with allegiance to Jamaica and Queen Elizabeth II. Elk v Wilkins found the 14th Amendment subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant sole jurisdiction. Kamala Harris, the evidence shows, was not a citizen at birth, much less a natural born citizen.

    1. Harris has held elected offices for 17 years, all of which required U.S. citizenship.

      It is rather remarkable that no one else noticed.

        1. You would have to ask Harris if has completed an SF 86. But generally speaking, most members of Congress aren’t required to complete one.

      1. You apparently do NOT understand that the term of art “Citizen” is NOT tantamount to the term of art “Natural Born Citizen”. A Senator is required to only be a “citizen”.

        To be President or VP one MUST BE a “Natural Born Citizen” (One born IN the US to parents who are BOTH US citizens themselves-Minor v. Happersett, USSCt. Unanimous!!)

        1. You are correct that a senator need be only a citizen.

          Harold Gielow, like Professor Eastman, was contending that Harris was not even a citizen. In other words, she hasn’t been eligible for every office that she has held and she has no legal right to be in the United States.

      2. Here’s an article discussing who is required to have a background check and who is not. Much of this was done by Executive Order, and it’s pretty obvious why politicians don’t want a background check and want to be able to employ and appoint people who also do not have to get a background check. Exhibit “A”……Barack Hussein Obama………………


        Most Americans are not aware of this and just assume certain people would be required to have a background check…..unfortunately that is not true.

    2. I understand Kamala’s parents to have both been un-naturalized Permanent Residents. As I said previously they did not naturalize before Kamala was born.

      Permanent residents are NOT U.S.Citizens until they naturalize. Unless they naturalize they remain citizens of their nation of origin.

  2. FACEBOOK, it seems, has evolved of late into FARCEBOOK relative to the “natural born Citizen” clause.

    What is actually “abusive” to “open-minded” lawless liberals (when “open-minded” in their case probably means “in one ear and out the other”) may be our P&E PROOF challenging their PC=BS SPOOF.

    “natural born Citizen” 1787- TODAY = NO FOREIGN ALLEGIANCES

    If Obama and Kamala were found wrapped in swaddling clothes on the steps of The White House, with their biological parents never known to anyone in their lifetimes, would they be “natural born Citizens” (nbC)? If they were taken in and raised by legally adoptive US citizens, who gave them their names and food and care et al, would they be “natural born Citizens”? Finally, if they were taken in by foreign nationals (non-US citizens) who gave them their names and food and care et al, would they be “natural born Citizens”?

  3. The 14th Amendment makes those who meet the requirements stated within it “Citizens”. It does NOT confer, nor can it, “Natural Born” citizenship.

  4. Schulyer, You are right. The term of Art “Natural Born Citizen” wasn’t defined IN the Constitution. THAT is why the U.S. Supreme Court cleared it up in no less then SIX opinions. In Minor v Happersett the opinion was UNANIMOUS. An NBC IS one born IN the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. Harris may very well be a citizen of the US but ONLY by naturalization. She is NOT and can NEVER be an NBC since she was NOT born to two US Citizens.

  5. As of now the 14th amendment has two INDEPENDENT clauses;
    “born or naturalized”
    “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
    Since naturalization confers citizenship the only reason for
    the conjunction instead of the adverb means birth, in and of itself, does not confer jurisdiction.
    Only transposing the “and” and the “are”
    yields one clause and “birthright citizenship”.
    This has nothing to do with diplomatic immunity,
    diplomatic immunity attaches to the office, not the individual.
    Leave office, lose immunity.
    Immunity can also be waived by the sending nation, not to mention the fact that, immunity or not, any diplomat is still subject to expulsion, regardless.
    The 14th Amendment constitutionally guaranteed the U.S. citizenship of
    ex-slaves, born in the United States or foreign born and subsequently naturalized, who were already under U.S. jurisdiction, albeit as slaves, nothing more.
    Once again, the word “AND” is a conjunction, not an adverb.

  6. Robert C. Laity and Sharon Rondeau should report Twitter’s action to President Trump, AG Barr, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Ajit Pai and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham.

  7. “There is, however, abundant evidence that the citizenship of the parents at the time of a person’s birth was historically a factor when determining whether or not the individual met the requirements for a U.S. citizen, or, going further, for a ‘natural born Citizen.'”

    What is this evidence and who was considering?

    1. Evidence:
      “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed3) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.” — Benjamin Franklin letter to Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas.
      Considering: Constitutional Congress

      “The Citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they participate equally in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are Citizens”. — Vattel’s “Laws of Nations”

      “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 devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” — John Jay letter to George Washington
      Considering: Constitutional Congress

      “All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and in compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural born citizen except what is said in the Constitution in relation to [Native American] Indians”. — John Bingham, author 14th Amendment
      Considering: Anyone citing the 14th Amendment with regard to born or naturalized citizen vs. natural born citizen.

      “I find no fault with the introductory clause of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 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”. — John Bingham, author 14th Amendment
      Considering: Anyone citing the 14th Amendment with regard to born or naturalized citizen vs. natural born citizen.

      1. So Franklin thanked Dumas for a book that doesn’t contain the phrase “natural born Citizen,” and the opinion of a representative who wasn’t born until more than two decades after the U.S. Constitution had been ratified?

        1. I’m sorry, I don’t follow.

          In 1758, Vattel wrote a book; it is in French, so it doesn’t contain the words “natural born Citizen.”

          In 1775, Franklin wrote a thank-you note for the gift of Vattel’s book.

          In 1787, Jay, who was not at Constitutional Convention, wrote a letter to Washington (who was), which contained the words “natural born Citizen.” This letter does not provide a definition.

          In the 1860s, a representative (who was not even born in 1787) expressed his opinion about what the Framers intended when they drafted the U.S. Constitution.

          What am I missing?

        2. “Les Naturel, ou indigenes” refers to Natural Born Citizens in the phrase “Les Naturels, ou indigenes sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parentS citoyenS” {emphasis mine). The naturals are those born IN a country to parents {PLURAL} who are citizens. (ParentS CitoyenS- Citizen Parents. THAT is what it says.

        3. “les Naturels, ou indigenes” describes Indigenous natural people of a country. The phrase “sont ceux qui sont” means “are those”. The phrase “Nes dans le pays” means “born in a country”. The phrase “de parents citoyens” means “of citizen parents”. PLURAL.

        4. The U.S. Supreme Court in The Venus (1814) translated “Les Naturel, ou indigenes” as “The natives or indigenes,” and not “The natives or natural born Citizens.”

    2. The Law of Nations which is referred to in Article 1 of the US Constitution reads that a Natural Born Citizen is one born in the US to parents who are both citizens.

      During the late 18th Century the official language of Diplomacy was French. Benjamin Franklin, who served as ambassador to France, spoke French. He brough back the French Translation of the Law of Nations (Translated by Emmerich de Vattel from Latin). Washington borrowed the book and never returned it to the NY Library.

      The definition in French is: “Les Naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens.

      In English Natural Born indigenous people are born in the country to parents who are both it’s citizens.

      Over 150 years later a contemporaneous copy was returned to the NY Library by Washington’s estate. The US Supreme Court has issued at least (6) opinions on the issue of NBC.

      The Venus, Minor v Happersett, Shanks v. Dupont, Wong Kim Ark, Perkins v Elg., Laity v NY, Obama and McCain and Laity v. NY, Rubio,Cruz & Jindal. Pending in USDC in DC is a lawsuit against Kamala Harris: U.S. ex rel, Robert C. Laity v. U.S. Senator Kamala Dev Harris. https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/09/13/harris-eligibility-suit-docketed-in-federal-court.

      The opinion of SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett was UNANIMOUS. An NBC is one born IN the US to parents who are US Citizens themselves.

      1. The “Law of Nations” in Article One refers to things like piracy, but “natural born Citizen” is in Article Two and says nothing about piracy.

        Franklin may have read French, but there’s no account of him translating Vattel’s book or even referring to Vattel’s book at the Constitutional Convention.

        1. Name a “Laws of Nations” by an author other than Emmerich de Vattel which was available contemporaneously with Vattel’s and provide evidence that any member of the Continental Congress had a copy thereof (similar to Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas).

          Kamala Harris may have been born in California, but there’s no evidence in the public domain that either of her parents were here as immigrants (and thereby subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) when she was born.

        2. Article I, sec. 8., cl. 10 grants Congress the power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”

          Book 4, chap. 5 of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England is entitled, “Of Offenses Against the Law of Nations.”

          Blackstone’s influence on the Framers was legion: https://www.baumanrarebooks.com/blog/blackstones-commentaries-books-founders-read/

          The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say a natural born Citizen is only someone born to parents who immediately declared their intent to immigrate.

          How are people legally in the United States not subject to its jurisdiction? If they didn’t subject themselves to the United States’ jurisdiction, then their presence in the United States would have been illegal.

        3. On the contrary Schuyler, Article I, Sec. 8 gives Congress the power to “DEFINE and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas AND offences of the law of nations”. Cherry picking doesn’t become a scholar.

          Franklin was NOT the only founder who spoke French. As I previously stated, French was then the OFFICIAL language of Diplomacy. The founders, coming from Europe were learned men. See Mr. Carter’s statement above. Franklin introduced the book to the founders and it was widely read and studied by the representatives AT the Constitutional convention.

          Our first President, George Washington read the book. NOT everyone is unilingual Schuyler. In any event, The Law of Nations was printed IN English in 1760. YEARS before the U.S. declared it’s Independence from England.

        4. See James Carter’s remarks. Franklin widely discussed the Law of Nations at the convention. In any event the book was published in English in 1760.

        5. James Carter asked if “Law of Nations” was the title of another book contemporary to the Framers. “Of Offences against the Law of Nations,” which was the title of a chapter in Blackstone’s Commentaries and mirrored the language used in Article I.

          The 1760 translation of Vattel’s book does not contain the term “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court in The Venus (1814) translated “Les Naturel, ou indigenes” as “The natives or indigenes,” and not “The natives or natural born Citizens.”