Segue: “nbC” Researcher Contacts Congress on Harris Eligibility, Challenges BHO on X

by Sharon Rondeau

(Sep. 26, 2024) — On Friday, The Post & Email published the first part of a recent interview with Theodore T. Moran, a long-term researcher of the constitutional term “natural born Citizen,” having begun his work in 2008 for the late Atty. Mario Apuzzo.

The three words constitute one of three presidential requirements stated in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution and are not defined anywhere in the nation’s founding documents.

Following the 2008 election in which Barack Hussein Obama was deemed president-elect, Apuzzo began preparing a case, Kerchner, et al v. Obama & Congress, et al, challenging Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status in light of his claimed foreign-citizen father, lack of conclusive proof he was born in the United States and public reporting to the contrary.

During our interview, Moran recounted Kerchner was ultimately dismissed for lack of “standing” but that the same argument cannot be made against state attorneys general if they were to challenge a presidential candidate’s eligibility to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Article III designates the high court as having “original jurisdiction” in matters “in which a State shall be Party.”

A registered Florida voter for the last 11 years, Moran contacted Attorney General Ashley Moody contending that sitting Vice President and 2024 Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris is not a “natural born Citizen” given her birth in California to parents who were admitted to the United States on student visas and were therefore not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth. That fact alone, he said, also renders Harris lacking basic U.S. citizenship since her parents were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at the time of her birth, a reference to an oft-omitted phrase of the 14th Amendment.

“I am considered one of the five best people in America for knowing the history and intent of the Framers decision for an Article II natural born Citizen [sic] doing a deep dive into Harris’ bio, I am convinced she is not even a citizen of the United States when she was appointed a senator,” Moran wrote to Moody.

He continued:

The 14th Amendment states, “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.” Now looking at her bio it would appear that she was born in California, but the phrase ” subject to the jurisdiction” is the key.

While most think that this means the children of Ambassadors are not “subject to the jurisdiction,” but the United States Code, specifically the Selective Service Act carves out another set of people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and that class of people are those who entered the United States of non-immigrated visas.

A similar position was presented in an August 2020 Newsweek column by then-Chapman University Professor of Law John C. Eastman when he wrote, in part:

The language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen. The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that “all persons born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully). Such was the view of those who authored the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause; of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases and the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins; of Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional treatise writer of the day; and of the State Department, which, in the 1880s, issued directives to U.S. embassies to that effect.

Several days after writing to Moody, Moran sent a letter to his congressman, Rep. Mike Waltz (R) in which he wrote, in part:

A person who claims the place of their birth as the sole source of their citizenship is easily manipulated for their heart does not consider America their home, but as Vattel, a thinker who profoundly influenced the drafting of our Constitution said it simply the place of their birth.  Bribery becomes a business tool, they do not feel a natural connection to the people they are elected to serve so these Americans become resources that they can exploit for their own gain or the gain of those in whom they do depend on, which is often an international cabal of financers that they easily open themselves to blackmail which serves only to tighten the spiral of dependence of treasonous acts and the financial rewards waiting for them to betray the nation that only offered them the opportunity to succeed. In the end people with no vibrant connection to the place of their birth will prove the adage, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is in this environment that dark money seeks out the weakest among us. 

How they do this by grooming treasonous politicians and lawyers to create laws and an environment that destroys this sense of belonging. They do this by changing the meaning of the phrases in our Constitution that promotes this common sense of belonging to a nation, to one of isolation and being alone in a crowd. Take for example what a natural born Citizen meant to our Founders, to what evil people want us to believe today.       

Today these people want you to believe a natural born Citizen is just someone who was born in a country, a place, but when you look at the remarks by our Founders it is easy to see that what they meant was far was a natural born Citizen was born into a national community. Which is why for the first 100 years of our existence you see in the early records of SCOTUS; a natural born Citizen being born in America to parents who were themselves citizens which reflected this belonging to a community.  It was in this unity of citizenship  our founders wanted our Commander in Chief to come from, they wanted someone to know the people, places and customs of America so that the holder of our highest office would always have a natural affinity for.

During our interview, Moran placed much importance on a July 25, 1787 letter sent by future first Supreme Court Justice John Jay to George Washington, who was then presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. In it, Jay wrote:

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.

Shifting to the 14th Amendment, The Post & Email commented, “You brought up the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'” and Moran replied:

Let me explain something else to you: Kamala Harris is not even a citizen of the United States. She should not even have held the office of Senator. It goes to ‘subject of the jurisdiction.’ Even taking Wong Kim Ark, said to be ‘subject to the jurisdiction,’ your domicile must be in America, what you call your home. What that means is that people who came here on immigrant visas and changed their home from their previous country to this country, those aliens’ children could become citizens because the parents were subject to the jurisdiction. But if you come here on a student visa, that’s a non-immigrant visa; you are expected to return home, and they had Kamala. Now Kamala legally had the right to be included in their visa, and at the age of 18 she could get her own green card. If they became citizens before she turned 21, then she could become a citizen: a naturalized citizen. History proves she is not a citizen.”

Moran added that the 14th Amendment was ratified solely to extend citizenship to former slaves. “It wasn’t about the future,” he said.

“How do you think this morphing of the meaning of the 14th Amendment came about?” we asked.

Are you familiar with “Motor Voter?”

“Yes, the NVRA.”

Yes. If you get a driver’s license, you’re put on the voter list. If you’re born in an American hospital, the hospital gives you a birth certificate. Take that birth certificate to the post office and say, “I was born in America,” and they automatically give you a passport without checking whether you were “subject to the jurisdiction” or not. As a matter of fact, most bureaucrats let that slide.

Let me also tell you why Obama and Kamala were chosen — and I say “chosen” purposely — because of their “un-natural” born Citizen status.

A natural born Citizen who’s going to betray his country will probably get cold feet, because he still has a connection. That’s what a natural born Citizen is: you have an innate connection to the other people in America. In other words, “I can feel your pain; I know what your hopes and dreams are because they’re mine.” Kamala and Obama don’t have that connection because they are the people who can betray America without remorse.

“Do you think Wong Kim Ark was decided correctly?” we asked, referring to the 1898 Supreme Court case in which a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents temporarily in the U.S. challenged the government’s arrest warrant after he re-entered the United States following his second trip to China to visit them. Upon his detention, the district attorney claimed Ark was “not a U.S. citizen.”

For the high court’s majority opinion, Associate Justice Horace Gray wrote:

By the constitution of the United States, congress was empowered ‘to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ In the exercise of this power, congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled ‘An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,’ passed at the second session of the first congress under the constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time ‘within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,’ and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, ‘dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization.’ Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribd by congress. Acts March 26, 1790, c. 3 (1 Stat. 103); January 26, 1795, c. 20 (Id. 414); June 18, 1798, c. 54 (Id. 566); April 14, 1802, c. 28 (2 Stat. 153); March 26, 1804, c. 47 (Id. 292); February 10, 1855, c. 71 (10 Stat. 604); Rev. St. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993.

“No, I think it was decided corruptly,” Moran responded. “Did you know that Gray was appointed by Chester A. Arthur? The first case of “birtherism” was initiated by the Democrats back with Chester A. Arthur. They accused him of being from Canada, because the truth is he was born about 15 miles from the Canadian border in Vermont. His father was from Canada and thus a British citizen who came to America and married his mother. They were back and forth into Canada as he was growing up. Arthur burned his father’s naturalization record that would have shown the date. Gray had to make the decision he did because if it came out that Arthur was not a natural born Citizen, Justice Gray’s appointment to the Supreme Court would have been in jeopardy. So he could not take into account Sen. Trumbull, who was the architect of both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and its codification in the 14th Amendment. He said, “What do I mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction?’ I mean not owing any allegiance to any foreign power.” He came right out and said it. That is like putting your car key into the ignition and turning it. He took “subject to the jurisdiction,” aligned it to Jay’s letter, and boom, it was perfect.

“We also had the Chinese Exclusion Act signed by Arthur in 1882,” Moran added.

The Act, which was in force from 1882 to 1902, extended beyond Wong Kim Ark, which was decided in 1898. Wikipedia‘s entry on Wong states:

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court’s majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.^[2] The court’s dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power^[9]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority’s view, would have excluded “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country”.^[10]

“A natural born Citizen was to keep foreign powers who wanted to influence America away from those positions of power,” Moran said. “It wasn’t meant to discriminate against anyone. It all goes back to Jay’s letter. What they did at that time was to show that America was a land of unity, that the president was unifying in his allegiance and commitment to America. If you take a look at the two terms between English common law and Vattel, one is a ‘natural-born subject’ and the other is a ‘natural born Citizen.'”

“‘Subject,’ he said, “goes back to our founding. Did government create citizens? No. If you look at Minor v. Happersett, it clearly states that the citizens created the government, hence ‘We the People…in Order to form…’ So the citizens had to exist before the government. In other words, the government cannot create citizens without the express permission of the preexisting citizens, which is naturalization. Mario and I used to have this discussion every day for eight years.”

“Wong Kim Ark should be overturned for cause,” Moran added, “and the Supreme Court is the only court that can define the terms in the Constitution.”

Contacting Moody and Waltz was only a first step in his mission to bring attention to the “natural born Citizen” issue, particularly as it pertains to Harris, Moran told us. The next, he said, is a letter-writing campaign to “every Republican member of Congress.”

Last Thursday after our interview, Moran took the opportunity to challenge Obama on X as to Harris’s eligibility after Obama urged Americans to vote for her in November. “@KamalaHarris has spent her life fighting for people who need a voice and a champion,” Obama wrote on the platform. “She’s more than ready to be President — let’s help her get elected. go.KamalaHarris.com.”

In response, Moran wrote, “How can Kamala be President when she is not a vanilla Citizen of the United States? Both her parents were in America under a non-immigrant student visa, and that makes her fail the domicile test of Wong Kim Ark. Is she pulling a Barry O. but on a grander scale?”

In explaining his comment, Moran told us, “Vanilla is your basic ice cream, I ran out of characters on x. I wanted to say ‘plain old vanilla.'”

One of his goals, Moran told us, is to initiate an online conversation on “natural born Citizen,” beginning with his new website, naturalborncitizen.us.

“Why am I doing this now?” he remarked as the interview concluded. “Because if we don’t do it now, we will lose our country, and we’ll become debt slaves, worse than we are now.”