The following is an extract of the letter I sent to my Congressman on September 16, 2024 and it forms the rational of the complaint I filed on September 11, 2024 with the Attorney General of Florida.

 

Kamala Harris is NOT a Citizen of the United States of America!

 


Our Constitution is under attack, by progressive, Marxists disguised as democrats who are funded by dark money. They want to change the Constitution, but they do not want America to know they are changing it. They know if they follow Article V, they will need to present their changes to Congress and the people for a vote, and they know they will lose. Instead, they prefer to use lawfare, lies and corrupt media to manipulate public opinion to change the meaning of many phrases of the Constitution. Terms that had great significance to both the Founders and the People that voted to adopt it. They try to cajole the opposition and  demand that we accept their reading of this precious document and ignore the fact that every single word on that piece of parchment cost 1,300,000 lives of our brothers and sisters.   


I have more than a concern that Kamala Harris is not ready to be the Commander in Chief in charge of 2 million men and women in uniform, and we know that she has the very real potential to double that number of honored dead during any term she seeks as Commander in Chief.  She will never be ready to take on that office and it is not her lack of experience, or her lack of understanding of what the military does and the unique culture each branch brings to the table does not worry me.  What worries me is she simply does not understand Americans, because she is not an American.

 

I state here and now there is no hatred of her sex or whom she identifies as, rather my concerns are based on my 12-year study of this unique document and what it means to be a natural born Citizen. It started this quest in 2008 when I started to question why former President Obama would not disclose his birth certificate, because other democrats like the Clinton’s and their surrogates were questioning his citizenship.


Most Americans know Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that states “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  And like most people I thought if he just produced his birth certificate showing he was born in America that would shut his critics up.

I wanted Obama to win, I wanted to see the first black American elected to the Office of President, I wanted Americans to show the world they were not racist, but most of all I wanted unity to return to our nation. Instead, I became one of the leading “Birthers” to come out of Obama’s term as Commander in Chief.

 

I know the term Birthers has a bad taste, the term was picked by a controlled media to make the population conjure rubes, ignorant bigots, they tried to scare people and make them afraid to be associated with a term, they did not want people to see they were draining America of its national spirit and wanted America to close their eyes to this theft. It was here I realized their sinister plan to change the meaning of the words in our Constitution to suit their agendas.  The term “natural born Citizen” remains in our Constitution, but its common meaning has been replaced with meaning of “native born,” and that is an affront to our Founders.


Before I tell you how they do this, I think it is important to first tell you why. A natural born Citizen historically had their citizen parents to keep their allegiance grounded in a common history and appreciation of all our nation represents.  It is this “community of belonging” that lead President Reagan to describe America as “that shining city on a hill.” It is this community that causes on man to jump on a grenade because he can see his comrades as a natural extension of himself. This evil that attacks the heart of America wants to destroy this community.


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 evil people want the People to believe a natural born Citizen is just someone who was born in a country, a place, but when the People 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 the People 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.

 

Your mistrust is because Kamala Harris does not have that natural connection to our national history and our people, and that is because she is neither an Article II natural born Citizen nor is she a citizen of the United States as defined in the 14th Amendment. Most people may have heard about former President Obama’s controversy on his natural born Citizenship, but I am sure you have not heard or heard very little of Harris’ lack of simple citizenship that she claims the 14th Amendment gives her. 

To recap what the 14th Amendment states concerning citizenship, “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. ” Looking at Harris’ biography it appears that she was born in California, but the phrase " subject to the jurisdiction" is the key to knowing if she is or is not as citizen of the United States.

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. That is because when a person enters the United States on a immigrant visa there is an expectation that they create their home and make a new life in America, likewise when a person enters our country with a non-immigrant visa there is an expectation that their stay in the United States is temporary and they will return to their home nation.  



 

With this expectation that this class of non-immigrate will return home, we do not place on them the obligations allegiance puts on citizens and immigrants, such as defending this nation.  From the Selective Service, "Non-immigrant men living in the United States on a valid visa are not required to register for as long as they remain on a valid visa up until they turn 26." The key phrase to understanding this is Non-immigrant, and I am not talking about the men and women who for centuries came here with the intention of making America their home; a Non-immigrant comes here strictly for some form of commercial gain.

 

From Kamala's biography both her parents were here in the US, on a nonimmigrant, student visa (F1) and under 26 at the time of her birth.  And while this question has never been decided by our courts, it certainly casts a bright light on her Constitutional qualifications to call herself an Article II, natural born Citizen. Her father’s biography cannot show US Citizenship until May of 2015, and reading the FOIA of her mother at uscis.gov it appears that her mother did not receive US citizenship, but for Kamala to be considered a citizen using the most liberal standards our government has, they would have needed to become citizens prior to October 21, 1985, which would have been one day after her 21st birthday.  There is no record of her mother naturalizing and while Kamala’s father Donald did naturalize the earliest date showing he naturalized is 33 years past the 1985 date. Since she was born to non-immigrants, she kept the nationality of her parents, and she was born an immigrant. Later in life her parents applied to become Permanent Residents and she would be included in their Green Card. But for Kamala to remain in the United States she would have needed to naturalize.

The above is based on a plain understanding of the 14th Amendment, Kamala’s biography, what I found on USCIS website and other sources including her father’s professional biography it appears obvious Kamala Harris was born while her parents were students and not under the jurisdiction of the United States and the 14th Amendment does not apply to her.
 

This happened because the definitions were turned on their heads. The meaning of the word domiciled, a word that showed permanence,  became the meaning of the word resided, a word that showed transient living.

You may ask me, “what about Wong Kim Ark, surely that made her a citizen.”  The 14th Amendment only codifies the 1866 Civil Rights Act so a future congress could not change it, as the Democratic President Andrew Johnson vetoed the 1866 Civil Rights Act and was overridden by the Republican Congress. While both added jus soli to the preexisting jus sanguinis as an avenue to become a citizen of the United States in the United States laws, it did not change the established meaning of a natural born Citizen. Wong Kim Ark establishes the rule for domicile and honestly many people misunderstand the case of Wong Kim Ark. These are some facts on Wong Kim Ark that need scrutiny,  

 

1. First Wong never was declared to be a natural born Citizen, nor was the decision unanimously decided.

2. Justice Gray, the author of the majority opinion, ignores the treaty the United States had at the time of Wong's birth with the Emperor of China not to naturalize Chinese citizens,

3. The court completely ignores the statements on the term "subject to the jurisdiction“ that were made by the architect of the 1866 Civil Rights law and the 14th amendment itself, Senator Trumbull which is "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

4. Justice Gray uses the English phrase “natural-born” and not the constitutional phrase "natural born Citizen," to confuse the average reader that Blackstone was. To do this Gray uses that case of Smith v. Alabama to pollute his finding with the erroneous statement  of Justice Matthews, that language of English common law  was used to frame our Constitution, but both James Madison and George Mason respectively the Fathers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights clearly stated that English Common Law was not used in the drafting of our Constitution, and Justice James Wilson in the case of Ware v. Hylton stated that when we declared our independence from England, we were free to adopt the law of nations as proposed by Vattel. 

5. Justice Gray ignored Chief Justice Jay's letter to George Washington, which defined a natural born citizen and that is someone who does not have foreign allegiance, just as Senator Trumbull stated drafting the 14th Amendment. 

6. Hidden in plain sight is the simple fact that Justice Gray had an ulterior motive, and that was to save his appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States, because the man who appointed him was accused of not to have been born in the United States by the Democrats in 1884. Arthur’s father was at the time of Arthur's birth was a British subject from Canada, and this is why Gray needed to declare the citizenship of the parent was irrelevant, and America started to use Jus Soli for the first time. If that had come out his appointment would have been seriously questioned. 

 

Many historians including P.A. Madison of the Federalist blog agree Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided by Justice Gray leading the majority and that makes it ripe to be overturned by an originalist court and is perhaps the biggest obstacle to solving our immigration/border crisis, which is another critical reason why it needs to be overturned.  Yes, we want people to enter our national community, but those who enter our community need to assimilate so together we are a part of a shared community.

If you were to look at the case of Minor v. Happersett, a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Waite starts by explaining the history of American citizenship that has not been debunked to today. He stated  in his opinion “The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”  I believe from reading this Chief Justice Waite said a class of citizens, which he defined as Article I Citizen of the United States and an Article II natural born Citizens preexisted the 14th Amendment. That alone should tell you the 14th Amendment did not change the definition of a natural born Citizen.  The irony of this case was that Ms. Minor could be the President of the United States, but she could not vote for the President of the United States, but it is considered the Supreme Court’s Magnus Opus of American citizenship from the founding of our nation until after the 14th Amendment.  

Returning to a natural born Citizen, it will be important to understand citizenship as it existed throughout American history. The Constitution defines three classes of citizenship at its Ratification.
 

A.    Citizen of the United States,

B.    Citizen of the United States at the time of Adoption of this Constitution

C.    Natural born Citizen

 

Description: Description: A diagram of a citizen

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 

The 14th Amendment states that citizens of the United States are those born and those who naturalize. This again is a commandeering of the phrases used to suit an agenda. However, the object of importance is a natural born citizen, not a born citizen. To understand this, we need to examine natural born Citizen, because if our Founders meant born Citizen, they would have said “born a Citizen” in place of “natural born Citizen.”

 

To really understand this phrase, we need to understand why it was added to the Constitution we need to look at why it was recommended, and to do that we need to look at the first time the Framers used that phrase, and that is the letter from John Jay to George Washington. 

 

“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.” To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

 

Simply put a natural born Citizen is to keep foreigners out of the administration of the nation.  Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: "a person belonging to or owing allegiance to a foreign country." To understand how allegiance is expected we need to look at the two ways citizenship is bestowed. The original jus sanguinis where citizenship was passed from parent to child and as was the owed allegiance of the parents because the child inherits the nature (allegiance) of the parents and jus soli which appeared  at the 14th amendment where citizenship is acquired from the land.

 

If a child was born with only one ligature or tie to the United States and another to a foreign nation, they have two allegiances where one is from jus sanguinis and the other from jus soli, and more importantly one allegiance is considered to a foreign to the other. While the modern courts allow dual citizenship, the Department of State states that the claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals may result in conflicting obligations under the laws of each country and in certain circumstances results in treason. Such a state of mixed allegiances, one domestic and the other foreign, it is impossible to conform to our Founding Fathers’ very real concerns.

However, when an American citizen’s allegiance is united under both jus sanguinis and jus soli there is not doubt that their natural allegiance is American, and there is no foreign allegiance. This condition satisfies the Founders’ concerns, and this person is a natural born Citizen, because they have a single natural allegiance, and that allegiance cannot be claimed by another country.    

I have mentioned both Blackstone’s English Common law and Vattel’s Law of Nations. Simply by looking at the two definitions we can see which definition allays Jay’s concerns and which exacerbates his concerns.

 

Under Blackstone’s English Common Law, the laws governing citizenship are found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 and state that,

 

1.     Those born in the dominions of the king are natural born subjects, including foreigners, that is based on Jus Soli.

2.     Those born outside the king’s domain to English fathers are natural born subjects, based of Jus Sanguinis.

 To accomplish this feat of creating a natural-born subject Blackstone had to divide allegiance to natural and local, and in doing so both allegiances can easily become muddied, between permanent and temporary. Natural allegiance is permanent and local allegiance is temporary. Natural allegiance is inherited from the parents, while local allegiance temporary as it comes from the land one is currently inhabiting at the time.

 

Under Vattel the laws governing citizenship are found in section § 212. Citizens and natives, and states,


§ The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


I have my drawn my own conclusion on who is a natural born Citizen is, by first looking at validating Jay's concerns against the available legal treatises the Founders had in 1787 and then by corroborating that finding with  the textural structure of a "natural born Citizen" that but by now you should start to think that your previous assumptions on who a natural born Citizen may be very wrong.  The reason many people have this false assumption is because the school systems were infiltrated by Marxists such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, that removed critical thinking from our school systems and replaced it with an ideology of compliance that foreign to a free people.

 

A natural born citizen has a connection that is empathetic to hopes and dreams of their fellow citizens in in the shared community of their Americans, as CIC their can be no doubt his allegiance is to the men and woman he commands can feel and trust in this ligature of mutual allegiance, they need to know that he values them as fellow Americans to cherished and not expendable chattel, all Americans need to know that this leader stands for them, because he is one of them.  


So, I do agree with the concerns that the average America has that Kamala is not ready to be our Commander in Chief; how can she relate to the average hope Americans have when she spent her most formative years, those between 12- and 20-years old, living and absorbing the culture in Canada, which was from 1976 to around 1983-1984. Even if we were to be kind to Kamala and call her a citizen, it is quite fair to ask her if her natural allegiance is toward, to America the place of her birth, to India the place of her mother, perhaps Jamaica the land of her father, or maybe Canada where she developed her foremost critical thoughts that allows her to believe she is an Internationalist. If that is the case, I fear what Vattel said, and America will be only the place of her birth, and not her country, and Jay’s unspoken warning where treason becomes relative to the various hats that she could wear is what awaits us.

If you were to ask me if I believe she is treasonous, I would need to look you in the eyes and say, “I don’t know, but putting our children’s lives at risk just so someone can check off a DEI check box, is insane.”

It is well known Kamala Harris supports policies that put illegal immigrants over the average American, and that because she cannot relate to the average American.  The average American is a natural born Citizen.

Please understand, as this is critical to finding a solution, Kamala Harris is not trying to usurp the Constitution by herself.  She has a lot of help, 99% of her fellow democrats, the globalists, international financers, NGOs known to despise America, and the bureaucrats of the deep state. We know this from the recent email from the White House’s Office of National Security stating that veterans do not believe the Administration, so it is a waste of time to try and answer the veterans’ concerns over Abbey Gate, in Kabul.

The solution includes identifying and confronting all malicious actors and call it out for what it is, not be cowed into silence by a cancel culture, most certainly we cannot ignore it as this theft will not stop. Do we wait until they have us believe all we hold true was flipped with our consent of silence that evil is good, and dogs are cats? This confrontation needs to happen on the field of free debate that is moderated by truth and reason, to be seen and decided by our fellow Citizens so they can choose to follow the reason of our Founders or be led by a manufactured emotion, a zeitgeist if you will call it that. We must do what we must and we must to stand together for our lives and the lives of our children.

 

This is perhaps the most important discussion America can have, an invasion of aliens is coming here and taking over our nation with the help of a domestic insurrection and soon America will cease to exist. Which brings me to the reason I am formally voicing my concerns as we may soon install a foreigner into the office of Command in Chief. As my elected representative I want you to use this letter to start a discussion on not only my concerns but a very substantial number of servicemen and veterans, with your colleagues in the halls of Congress. Do not be afraid of their ridicule, as this is one of their favorite tactics; "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage." Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals.

What can you do? Contract your member of Congress and contact your state’s Attorney General make a recorded complaint. When Congress beings the discussion, then the Attorney Generals and Secretaries of State for the several states who have Article III standing can bring this up in several courts District courts where this can be decided constitutionally at the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

    
If we fail to bring this discussion to the forefront of the American people the shear number of illegals will become Obama’s dream of a Gestapo like national security force, for the new democratic majority, that rivals our military. It cannot be denied that we as existing American Citizens are being stripped of our natural rights while an invading army is rewarded with the fruits of our labors. We must act now, or we will face a new July 2nd.      

Respectfully Submitted,


  Description: Description: A close up of a signature

Description automatically generated

 

Theodore T. Moran

Florida