Is Kamala Harris a “Natural Born Citizen”?

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

Is Kamala Harris a “Natural Born Citizen”? | by Joseph DeMaio | @

(Jun. 25, 2019) — One of the Democrat wanna-be candidates yearning for the opportunity to get bludgeoned by President Trump in the 2020 general election is Sen. Kamala Harris.  You will recall from her classless performance in the now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, she believes that the mere allegation of a crime – and particularly a sexual assault crime – is sufficient to warrant a conclusion of guilt in the alleged perpetrator.

Due process and the presumption of innocence – let alone actual proof or competent evidence of the actual commission of a crime – are principles of law which are foreign to Democrats in general, and seemingly altogether alien to Ms. Harris in particular.  Interesting trait in a lawyer…, no?

These circumstances make it all the more ironic and hypocritical – par for the course with Democrats, of course – that Harris, a former San Francisco District Attorney and California Attorney General, would now claim that, because of her “prosecutorial” experience, she is the best situated candidate among the Democrat field to “go after Trump” once she is elected to the presidency.  She has even analogized her zeal to pursue President Trump with a reference to a “rap” sheet concocted against the president.

But here’s the juicy part: she recently promised a crowd of supporters in South Carolina that she would “prosecute the case against Trump on the debate stage” prior to the election, if she were the Democrats’ nominee.  Please…, please…, D’s…, nominate her and put her on stage next to Trump.  Your faithful servant would pay a big-time sum for tickets to be in that same room when the questions begin flying.

One of the first questions that Trump should pose to Harris (regardless of whether it is ‘on topic’ as dictated by the moderators) is this: “Are you eligible under the Constitution as a ‘natural born Citizen?’”  Her answer would likely be: “Seriously?  You’re going to the ‘birther’ nonsense again?  Of course I’m eligible.  I was born in Oakland, California.”  Trump (or whoever the moderators might be) should follow up: “But when you were born, were your parents already U.S. citizens?”  Her likely response: “That doesn’t matter.  I have it on good authority that anyone born here, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, is a natural born Citizen.”  Trump should then grin and say: “Prove it.”

P&E readers, you see where this is going, right?  As your faithful servant has attempted to explain over the years, it was the demonstrable intent of the Founders, for anyone willing to see, to absolutely restrict eligibility to the office of the “Chief Magistrate” – the President – to a “natural born Citizen,” and only to someone who met the criteria for same.  That restriction, adopted by the Founders in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, was taken from § 212 of The Law of Nations, the seminal work of one Emmerich de Vattel, a 17th Century jurist and philosopher.  In order to be a “natural born citizen,” as opposed to a “native born citizen” or a “naturalized citizen,” both of one’s parents must be, at the moment of the person’s birth, citizens of the country where the birth occurs.

DeVattel’s work, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, was continually in the hands of the Founders as they labored over the drafting of the Constitution and was the work “most widely cited in the 50 years after the [American] Revolution.”  See United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 462, n.12 (1977).

As it turns out, Kamala Harris was born to a Tamil Indian mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, and a Jamaican father, Donald Harris. Given that one Barack Hussein Obama II continues to refuse to remove the dark cloud of constitutional ineligibility still hanging over his usurpation of the presidency, Ms. Harris might expect similar problems.

Bear in mind, Monsieur Obama’s “original Hawaiian birth certificate,” thought by many to be (and likely in reality) a computerized forgery, listed his father as being a citizen of Kenya, not the United States.  Thus, even if the .pdf image of a document posted to the Internet which he claims is his “real deal” birth certificate were treated as “authentic,” he would still have been ineligible.  The fact that his mother (some would even question that “fact”) was a U.S. citizen in 1961 is irrelevant: because his father was never a U.S. citizen, he was, as we say “from the get-go,” ineligible to hold the office of the president.  The fact that he occupied the office illegitimately merely recognizes that he “got away with it.”  So far…, that is.

Returning to the eligibility of Ms. Harris, because the available public records fail to confirm that both her mother and her father were, on October 20, 1964, naturalized U.S. citizens, her eligibility remains very much in doubt.  The several deeply flawed and deceitfully structured Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) Memos and Reports from 2009, 2011 and 2016, seeking to prop up the purported (but false) legitimacy of Monsieur Obama as a natural born Citizen, will not help her.  Memo to P&E readers: as noted here, the 2009 CRS “What to Tell your Constituents… Memorandum” has been scrubbed from the website and is no longer accessible there, but you can learn about what it said here, here and here. [Editors note: I have updated the link from “2009” in the upper part of this paragraph to a working URL to see the 2009 CRS Memo.]

… continue reading at:

# # # #

Per my research Kamala Harris is definitely NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States per Article II constitutional standards. She was born with citizenship and allegiance requirements to three countries. She does not have unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the USA at and by birth. She was born and raised with foreign influences on her. We do not want a Commander in Chief with birth allegiance requirements to another country.  See:

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:



What About Bob? Flashback: Early Birther Chris Matthews in Dec 2007 Aired on MSNBC the Clinton Operatives Talk About Obama Born in Indonesia and Obama’s Islamic Background

Flashback for the Truth:  Unearthed Video — Early “birther” Hillary Clinton and her campaign used Chris Matthews in Dec 2007 to get aired and widely spread on MSNBC, the comments made by former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey, a Clinton surrogate. Chris Matthews on his show mentioned the remarks by Bob Kerrey and the chatter on the blogs that Obama was born in Indonesia and has an Islamic background and asking why are Hillary’s operatives are talking about it.  His show gave the developing “birther” chatter national media coverage and longer legs (the intent imo) all the while being superficially critical of others talking about it. What’s with that, etc.? Note the smirk on Chris’ face as he talks about the issue. Hillary wanted the story out on a national news or talk show and Chris Matthews made it happen.  Nice tactic by Chris Matthews. Questioning the motives of others, but Chris Matthews was knowingly giving the story longer legs while doing it.  Who really was the clever one in getting the early Obama “birther” rumors and story out that Hillary and her political operatives wanted out far and wide and who was carrying Hillary Clinton’s water to get that Obama foreign-birth “birther” story out further and feigning to the audience simple inquisitiveness about it back then in Dec 2007 (and now acts like he and Hillary had nothing to do with seeding the original Obama was foreign-born “birther” stories into the national media early on). What a hypocrite Mr. Chris Matthews was then and still is now as to who put out the Obama birth location revelations first:


Full Segment

However, Let Us No Forget.  While Hillary Clinton and Her Campaign and Chris Matthews Did Their Clever Best to Spread the Early “Birther” Story Further in the National Media, It Should Be Remembered That Obama Himself Was The Very First “Birther”, That Is a Person Saying He Was Not Born in The USA.  Obama Said That About Himself for Many Years Prior to Deciding to Run for President. So Obama Himself is the Start of That Fact, i.e., Who Started It. See This Collection Of Statements and Writings By Himself, Family, Friends, and Associates Over Many Years Prior to 2007 That He Was Not Born In The USA:

And then read this:

While Chris Matthews was willing to spread the talk about Obama’s connections and sympathies to Islam back in Dec 2007 he now expresses outrage when Republican Party candidates mention it or anything critical of Islam.  But the facts are the facts, western civilization has a well founded right and historical grounds to fear the spread of Islam into our democracies and the infiltration of our government based on its founding tenets that were preached by its prophet Mohammad and its history.  Islam is both a supremacist combined political system and religion, unlike other large world religions. The founder of Christianity, Jesus said render unto Caeser what is Caeser’s and unto God what is God’s.  There is no separation of church and state in Islam and it is totally incompatible to our U.S. Constitution and our republic.  Islamists will submit to western constitutional laws until they get enough numbers.  At that point they will object and demand the establishment of Sharia Law.  First for them and then eventually for everyone once they gain majority political power.  It is a supremacist religion and political system that is intolerant of other religions and western concepts of government.  In Islamic teachings their religious Sharia law is supreme and is the foundation law of their states.  Islam’s tenets teach that there will be no peace in the world until the whole world submits to Islam and is governed by Islamic Sharia Law and thus the centuries of Jihad beginning since the days of their prophet against its non-Islamic neighbors, either by force of arms or by infiltration and migration.  Learn more as to why we in the western democracies should be very concerned about the recent large scale spread of Mohammedans  to Europe and elsewhere, including plans to allow 10s if not 100s of thousand to migrate to the USA due to their continued religious warring within their own ranks and with their neighbors in the middle east:

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E., (Retired)

P.S. Here is a chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.
P.P.P.S. Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to U.S. Constitutional standards. Read this essay regarding the legal term of art “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)”. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: Also read the “Three Legged Stool Test” for Natural Born Citizen … AND … Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: