presidential eligibility – CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

Blast From The Past: Is Tulsi Gabbard a Natural Born Citizen? No!

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 | @ ThePostEmail

(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 2^nd 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: http://www.thepostemail.com/2019/06/28/is-tulsi-gabbard-a-natural-born-citizen/

# # # #

And also this 2019 article by Atty Larry Klayman: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/kamala-harris-and-tulsi-gabbard-not-constitutionally-qualified-to-be-president-or-vp-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

And this 2022 article by Trevor Loudon (an expert on Socialists and Communists and their ability to pretend they are not when politically expedient to their secret agenda) at his New Zeal website: https://www.trevorloudon.com/2022/12/two-faced-tulsi/

Tulsi Gabbard may talk the right talk right now. But I still believe at her core she is still a dedicated socialist to the core. She supported Bernie Sanders after she dropped out from her presidential bid. Why Donald Trump is letting her get close to his campaign baffles me. He should have learned his lesson by now to not trust people who have not proven themselves over a lengthy period of time by their actions, not just the Tulsi-come-lately conservative talk and speeches.

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Author: Natural Born Citizen
http://www.kerchner.com/books/naturalborncitizen.htm
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
https://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
https://www.protectourliberty.org

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”: 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/

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/ …

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

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: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

More nbC Comments: More Humble Servant Responses | by Joseph DeMaio | @ ThePostEmail

More nbC Comments: More Humble Servant Responses | by Joseph DeMaio | @ ThePostEmail.com

(Feb. 13, 2024) — One of the more useful features of The P&E platform, apart from the topical articles appearing here, is the comments section. There, some insightful and frequently robust discussions can take place where differing views can be voiced and compete with one another. Is not the First Amendment cool, despite the efforts of many on the Left to censor and neuter its existence?

One of the topics generating some of the more spirited and robust exchanges is – that’s right, Virginia – the “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) presidential eligibility issue under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. That provision restricts eligibility (not “qualification”) to the presidency to a “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution….”

It is assumed that most, if not all who are reading this offering, are generally familiar with the competing theories of what the nbC term actually meant to the Founders in 1787 when they were drafting the Constitution. For a quick “refresher course,” some may wish to review this post.

In addition, from time to time it is useful to explore in more detail some of the comments submitted to posts addressing the issue. That has happened several times in the past, as for example here and here.

*https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/02/09/the-ussc-oral-arguments-in-trump-v-anderson/*

Such a time again presents itself regarding multiple comments offered by commenter Joe Leland to a recent article by your humble servant addressing references to the nbC issue occurring at the recent Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. That is the case where the Colorado Secretary of State is attempting to keep President Trump off the primary ballot on the claim that he is an “insurrectionist” barred under the 14^th Amendment. Your servant addressed that mile-high anomaly here.

Mr. Leland offers many comments relating to the nbC issue as discussed in your servant’s “Anderson” article, and readers are encouraged to review those comments…, and perhaps offer their own comments.

As for the present article you are reading, the objective will be to respond to and counter some selected comments offered by Mr. Leland. There are many responses that might be made, but a complete analysis would rival “War and Peace” in length. Your servant will offer, instead, examples and responses that would typify those for a complete novel…, but shorter.

Ready? Let us begin. … continue reading here: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/02/13/more-nbc-comments-more-humble-servant-responses/

# # #

The nbC Eligibility Brainwashing Runs Deep | by Joseph DeMaio

The nbC Eligibility Brainwashing Runs Deep | by Joseph DeMaio | @ ThePostEmail.com

“Alexander Hamilton” by John Trumbull, 1806 (public domain)

(Jan. 12, 2024) — Following up on the presidential eligibility posts recently appearing at The P&E here and here, the New York Post – founded, BTW, by Alexander Hamilton in 1801 – has come out and slammed President Trump’s suggestion that Nikki Haley is likely ineligible to the presidency. The Post labels President Trump’s suggestion that Haley is not a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) under the Constitution as being “bonkers.”

Really? Where to start, where to start?

First, President Trump’s post questioned Nikki Haley’s eligibility primarily in terms of her pursuit of the presidency, but it also addressed her likely disqualification for the vice-presidency under the 12^th Amendment. Problematically, the Post article misinforms its readers when it asserts that “[t]he 12^th Amendment lays out the procedure for electing the president and vice president and makes no mention of eligibility.” (Emphasis added)

Even the most cursory review of the actual language of the 12^th Amendment reveals that its final sentence states: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” (Emphasis added) Like the caveman said in the Geico commercial from the 1980’s, “Yeah, next time, maybe do a little more research.”

Second, the author of the NY Post article, one Emily Crane, although a journalist for some 15 years with a B.A. degree in “Communications Studies” from Western Sydney University (yes, Virginia, in Australia…, not the United States), does not claim to be a U.S. Constitution scholar. Instead, she relies for her assertions on, among others, one Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago professor who, she claims, is an expert on constitutional law.

Professor Stone is quoted in the Post article as labeling President Trump’s (and one Paul Ingrassia’s) Haley ineligibility claims as being “bonkers.” He added that against the backdrop of the 14^th Amendment, there was “no legitimate case that would disqualify Haley from the presidency based on her parents’ citizenship.”

This, of course, is the same narrative that has been parroted by the vaunted Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) – the purported repository of “the nation’s best thinking” – since 2009, when it began defending the claimed eligibility and “natural born Citizen” status of one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

Respectfully, there is now a lot of empirical factual and anecdotal evidence that the Founders adopted a definition of an nbC that would – as both Messrs. Trump and Ingrassia posit – disqualify and render Nikki Haley ineligible to the presidency or the vice-presidency. Specifically, a compelling case can be made for the Founders’ adoption of the highly restrictive definition of “natural born citizen” found in § 212, Book 1, Ch. 19 of Swiss attorney, jurist and scholar Emer de Vattel’s 1758 treatise, The Law of Nations.

By contrast, the “14^th-Amendment-anyone-born-here-as-a-citizen-alone-makes-one-a-natural-born-citizen” theory is not only wrong, it is counterintuitive. This erroneous fable has been the incessant drumbeat narrative in which people’s brains have been marinated for many years. Stated otherwise, eligibility brainwashing has run deep and insidiously over the years. And it hasn’t stopped. … continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/01/12/the-nbc-eligibility-brainwashing-runs-deep/

# # #

Another outstanding follow-on article to the above article has been written 14 Jan 2024 by the scholarly constitutionalist Joseph DeMaio. It can be read at this link: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/01/14/who-can-handle-the-nbc-eligibility-truth/

And on other key historical point from yours truly that many have forgotten: We need to remember that it was Obama’s forged short-form Certification of Live Birth, used by Obama and his campaign beginning in June 2008, which is the one he used to get elected, confirmed, and then sworn into office (as a usurper).

The forged long-form Certificate of Live Birth put out in April 2011 was in response in my opinion to all the problems being caused politically, nationally by the forged short-form document. Surveys in 2009 and 2010 after the election was over, and the forged short-form issue got a little more traction in some of the media (particularly by Lou Dobbs at that time), increasingly the national surveys showed a very large percentage of the American electorate believed that the short-form birth record for Obama was forged.

Pressure was increasingly being applied nationally by people with big megaphones like Lou Dobbs, Dr. Jerome Corsi, Donald Trump, and your truly via the full page ads I was running in the Washington Times National Weekly edition from 2009-2013, including many in the late winter and early spring in the exact weeks in April 2011 leading up to and right after the release of Obama’s forged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. I believe the forged long-form was created in part to try to make the discussion of the forged short-form go away. It did succeed in doing that for the mainstream media for about one day. Within 24 hours the long-form was discovered to be a computer generated forgery too. I was on a radio show debating the liberal host about the forged long-form the very next day after it was released. So the discussion of Obama’s forged birth documents merely was shifted from the short-form to the long-form. But not for those of us who have been following the grifter and fraud Obama since the summer of 2008. See the Washington Times ads sorted by date inserted, latest to the earliest to find those running in April and May 2011 at this link: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/archives.htm .

And then of course Obama had Osama Bin Laden taken out to totally change the subject in the media from further discussion of Obama’s various forged identity documents.

Also see these excellent videos by the graphics expert Dr. Ron Polland, aka Dr. Polarik, proving both the short-form and long-form Obama birth record documents are computer generated forgeries, and demonstrating how exactly the forger made them: http://www.youtube.com/@TheDrRJP

Interview on Obama’s Birth Certificate

Interview on Obama’s Birth Certificate | Zach DeGregorio of WolvesAndFinance.com and Sharon Rondeau of ThePostEmail.com

YouTube Video Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2WlSOjNAhc

Article About Interview Here: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/01/11/the-post-emails-interview-with-zach-of-wolvesandfinance-com/

# # #

Regarding Obama’s forged short-form Certification of Live Birth used by Obama and his campaign beginning in June 2008 and the forged long-form Certificate of Live Birth put out in April 2011, see the videos proving both documents are computer generated forgeries by the graphics expert Dr. Ron Polland, aka Dr. Polarik: http://www.youtube.com/@TheDrRJP