Is Tulsi Gabbard a Natural Born Citizen?

U.S. Representative for Hawaii and Dem Candidate for President and CinC –  Tulsi Gabbard

Click on image for original intent and understanding definition of “natural born Citizen” of the United States — CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Is Tulsi Gabbard a Natural Born Citizen? | by Joseph DeMaio | @

(Jun. 28, 2019) — Well, well, well…, who woulda thunk?  Following the first round of Democrat Loser Debates, it seems that a consensus is developing that the junior representative from Hawaii, Ms. Tulsi Gabbard may just be rising in the polls.  In an unofficial “poll” conducted online by The Drudge Report during and following the debate, some 40% of around 50,400 respondents picked Gabbard as the winner of the debate, with her closest 2nd place rival, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, coming in at less than 12.5%.

Say what?  A relatively unknown representative from Hawaii gets more than three times the number of votes than her second-place, far more well-known competitor, Senator Warren?  While the poll sample size is minute compared to the entire electorate, what is up with that?  Perhaps it is because (a) Gabbard is a military veteran, having served in Iraq and now commissioned as a full major in the Hawaii Army National Guard; (b) she decimated Congressman Tim Ryan (Ohio) by correcting him that it was members of Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, who destroyed the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/01; and (c) she hails from a state that has already given us Barack Hussein Obama II.

Wait a second… while Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii, faithful P&E readers know two things: (1) that assertion is likely false or, at minimum, unsubstantiated, and (2) even if true, the documentation he has supplied seems clearly to establish in any event that he is not (and was not when he usurped the presidency) a “natural born Citizen” as required under the Constitution.

But what about Gabbard?  Apart from most of her goofy ideas and positions trending toward the radical-progressive wing of the Democrat Party (she was a vice-chair of the “Democratic [sic] National Committee” for a brief period of time before resigning to endorse Bernie Sanders for president in 2016… not the smartest move…), there is another impediment she will likely face.  She, along with another Democrat presidential-wannabe, Kamala Harris, must prove that she is eligible as a “natural born Citizen” under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution.

This task arises, of course, because although from all appearances, both of her parents – Carol (née Porter) and Mike Gabbard – were both already U.S citizens on April 12, 1981, Tulsi Gabbard’s birth did not take place within the United States.  Rather, it took place in Leloaloa, Maoputasi County, American Samoa.  As faithful P&E readers also know, under the provisions of § of 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations – and upon which tome the Founders “continually relied” while drafting the Constitution, including the “natural born Citizen” restriction of Art. 2, 1, Cl. 5 – in order for one to satisfy the eligibility restriction, not only must the child’s parents be citizens of the nation where the birth occurs, the birth must take place on that nation’s soil.

This is where it gets sticky.  While American Samoa is a “territory” of the United States, it is not an “incorporated territory.”  This is the same issue that faced Sen. John McCain in 2008, when he faced off against Monsieur Obama as discussed here.  Among several issues in McCain’s case was whether he was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station hospital, a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone, or whether he was born in a hospital in Colón, Panama, which has never has been a part of the United States.  Parenthetically, in a case challenging his eligibility – Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008) – the record indicated that a copy of McCain’s birth certificate was received in evidence, with the judge stating that the birth certificate “lists his place of birth as Colón.”  Id. at 65.

… continue reading at:

# # # #

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)

P.S.  Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States of which Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, and others are not:

1. A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.

2. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.

3. Read this essay regarding the constitutional term “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “Natural born Citizens” are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. Adjectives mean something. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”:

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships:

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen:

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: or

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: and

8. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here:

Via Liberty Born: NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act and Why It Was Totally Repealed as in Error

Click on image for more details constitutional term
Click on image for more details constitutional term “natural born Citizen”

Via Liberty Born:  NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act and Why It Was Totally Repealed as in Error:

A Defective and In Error and Totally Repealed Law Should Not and Can Not be Used to Legally Justify the Constitutional Eligibility of Anyone to be President and/or Vice-President of the United States.

Read this excellent essay and lesson from history and how the political hack attorneys of both political parties and the Congressional Research Service are deceiving Congress and the world by using a REPEALED and defective Naturalization Law to try and make a false point about who really is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Barack Obama are NATURALIZED “Citizens” by statutory/positive law and are NOT “natural born Citizens” per Natural Law. They are not constitutionally eligible to serve as either President or Vice-President.  Read how the person considered to be the author of the U.S. Constitution James Madison communicated via letter to Thomas Jefferson about the defects in that 1790 first law/act of the first Congress and the need to totally REPEAL it via the 3rd Congress in 1795.  George Washington was the President in both cases and signed the 1795 Naturalization Act total REPEALING the 1790 Act, and thus any legal force it had is “annulled”, i.e., like the 1790 Act never existed, and thus it cannot ever be used for any legal purpose.  And as to inferring any intent of the founders and framers as to their understanding of the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our U.S. Constitution as to who can be President and Commander in Chief of our military forces, the two Naturalization Acts (and the discussion by the of why they REPEALED the defective 1790 Naturalization Act) must be considered in concert:


ted-cruz-fails-three-legged-nbc-stool-test (missing 2 legs & falling over)
Ted Cruz Cannot Stand for President or Vice-President. He is Missing Two Legs!

Read this essay by CDR Kerchner (Ret) about Ted Cruz’s deliberate deception and why Ted is NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards.  Ted Cruz is missing two legs: … AND …

Read this essay by Article II constitutional expert Atty Mario Apuzzo on the difference between being born a basic “Citizen” of the United States and being born a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:

Here is the link to the full text of the 1790 Naturalization Act and full text of the 1795 Naturalization Act which totally REPEALED and REPLACED the faulty 1790 Naturalization Act.  See:

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

P.S. Also read this essay regarding the constitutional term in the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: … AND … Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: and Part II:

%d bloggers like this: