CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

September 17, 2013

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2013: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not! | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2013: A Lesson from History. Is Being Born a Citizen (Citizen at/by Birth) of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided … It Was Not!

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Retired)
17 September 2013 – Constitution Day

During the process of developing a new U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. At some point, he also suggested to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

Many of the founders and framers had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of Natural Law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” or “born a Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents, both of them, when their child is born, as per natural law.

The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay’s letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a “born Citizen” of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.

John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. “

See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link. This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective “natural” making it “natural born Citizen of the United States” for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton’s proposed “born a Citizen”. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:

“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.”

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.

Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.

Jay’s proposal recommended clause added the additional adjective before “born Citizen” that was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective “natural” means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective “natural” comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the “Des citoyens et naturels“, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (the French term “naturels” was translated to English in 1781 in the Journal of the Continental Congress and in the 1797 English edition of Vattel), to tell us that the “natural born Citizens” are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama’s birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreign national, non-U.S. citizen serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.

Another founder of our nation and great historian of the American Revolution named David Ramsay contemporaneously defined in a 1789 essay what the term “natural born Citizen” means. Read a copy of Ramsay’s original dissertation at this link. Other research papers from history on the term “natural born Citizen” published long before the current controversy was created by the 2008 election debacle can be read at this link. The paper by Breckenridge Long in 1916 is a particularly good one.

Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a born Citizen of the USA depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a “natural born Citizen of the United States” since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military.

The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

So, can a “born Citizen” be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding NO per the founders and framers. Being a “born Citizen the United States” is a necessary but NOT sufficient part of being a “natural born Citizen of the United States”. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: http://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/  Only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA and is thus constitutionally eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.

SBTP Dolly Madison Quote du Jour,
” The Constitution was signed  September 17, 1787, by 39 brave men who changed the world.”

HAPPY CONSTITUTION DAY!

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

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.S. Also 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)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: http://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/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

September 17, 2012

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2012: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not! | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2012: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided … It Was Not!

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Retired)
17 September 2012 – Constitution Day

During the process of developing a new U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. He also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

Many of the founders and framers had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.

The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay’s letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a “born Citizen” of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.

John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. “

See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link. This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective “natural” making it “natural born Citizen of the United States” for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton’s proposed “born a Citizen”. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:

“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.”

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.

Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.

Jay’s proposal recommended clause added the additional adjective before “born Citizen” that was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective “natural” means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective “natural” comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the “Des citoyens et naturels“, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (the French term “naturels” was translated to English in 1781 in the Journal of the Continental Congress and in the 1797 English edition of Vattel), to tell us that the “natural born Citizens” are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama’s birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreign national, non-U.S. citizen serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.

Another founder of our nation and great historian of the American Revolution named David Ramsay contemporaneously defined in a 1789 essay what the term “natural born Citizen” means. Read a copy of Ramsay’s original dissertation at this link. Other research papers from history on the term “natural born Citizen” published long before the current controversy was created by the 2008 election debacle can be read at this link. The paper by Breckenridge Long in 1916 is a particularly good one.

Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a born Citizen of the USA depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a “natural born Citizen of the United States” since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military.

The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

So, can a “born Citizen” be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding NO per the founders and framers. Being a “born Citizen the United States” is a necessary but NOT sufficient part of being a “natural born Citizen of the United States”. But only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA. Obama is not constitutionally eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.

SBTP Dolly Madison Quote du Jour,
” The Constitution was signed  September 17, 1787, by 39 brave men who changed the world.”

HAPPY CONSTITUTION DAY!

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

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”.

June 28, 2012

It’s Deja Vu All Over Again with Chief Justice Roberts — A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision

With “CINO” (Conservative in Name Only) Chief Justice Roberts and his Neville Chamberlain leadership of the Supreme Court it is Deja Vu all over again.  Roberts has been the problem all along in allowing our Constitution to be trampled by Obama – in particular Article II Section 1 Clause 5.  Now Roberts has done it again — siding with the liberal wing of the court to “Move Forward” Obama’s fascist and socialist agenda to socialize America and ignore our  constitutional republic system of government to help Obama “Move Forward” to a dictatorial federal fascist socialist form of government.  See below post from the fall of 2010.

# # # #

Originally Written & Posted Online by CDR Kerchner @ Puzo1.BlogSpot.com:  Monday, November 29, 2010 @ 2:57 PM

A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

For Immediate Release – 29 November 2010 2:30 p.m. EST

A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

The “Roberts Court” of the U.S. Supreme Court in my opinion will be known in history as the “Neville Chamberlain Supreme Court”, the great Obama appeaser court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
Appeasement due to fear that some immediate small amount of veiled and threatened violence from the far left socialists and Saul Alinsky goons, tyrants and bullies, and thus not doing the right thing early on to support the rule of law and the Constitution, ultimately leads to much bigger problems later. History has shown us that over and over. The Obama eligibility matter should have been fully and thoroughly addressed and openly investigated by the investigative reporters in the major media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries to get all of Obama’s documents released to the public as part of the vetting process. It wasn’t done.
 
Congress should have addressed this when asked by 100s of thousands of constituent letters and petitions sent to them and when constitutionally it was required to so under the 20th Amendment. It didn’t. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn’t. Everyone in our system of government chose ignoring the problem and appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else. Now it is far worse. The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken top to bottom and bottom to top. And it will only get worse as our legal system and constitutional republic further deteriorates and the rule of law gives way more and more to appeasement of bullies and tyrants in waiting such as Obama and his far left Marxist cronies and puppet masters. Appeasement of the constitutional usurpers will not make it go away. It will only delay the inevitable and fester and grow and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reveals himself in a much bolder way and attempts to take away all our protections to our unalienable rights and liberty. Neville Chamberlain tactics never work with bullies, alinskyites, tyrants, and national socialists.
The U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. See below. Certiorari for our case was denied. The two justices appointed by Obama who in my opinion had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have! Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with the relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. There were recusals declared by these two Obama appointees in many other petitions including the one immediately before our petition in the orders list and the one immediately after. Imo, apparently the court needed all nine justices in the room to kill the petition. With the full court of 9 justices it’s the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it’s then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. For information on the Rule of 3 see:  Supreme Court Practices, 9th edition, by Eugene Cressman, et al, page 324. The lawsuit Pryor v United States (1971) is an example case of the Rule of 3 being used.  I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 … financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO.

10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44359775/U-S-Supreme-Court-Order-List-562-U-S-dated-2010-11-29-Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Decison-on-Pg-15

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

March 14, 2012

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) was Guest on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim ‘Howie’ Mandel – Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:00 ET

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) was Guest on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim ‘Howie’ Mandel – Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:00 ET

Listen to it on podcast at:  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/howieunveilsgodsshield/2012/03/14/jim-howie-mandel-jr-march-9th-2012

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

January 5, 2012

WAS BABY VIRGINIA SUNAHARA’S IDENTITY STOLEN? | by Dean Haskins | @ BirtherSummit.org

Virginia Sunahara Gravestone Rendering

Click on image to see image of actual grave marker in Hawaii for Virginia Sunahara

WAS BABY VIRGINIA SUNAHARA’S IDENTITY [birth registration certificate number] STOLEN? | by Dean Haskins | @ BirtherSummit.org

Read full report here:  http://www.birthersummit.org/news/73-was-baby-virginia-sunaharas-identity-stolen.html

More coverage of this with video here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/update-on-lawsuit-filed-against-hawaii.html

My comment: As I read the article a question goes through my mind … “has the Hawaiian Health Department been engaged in criminal activities and not following their own laws beyond the hiding of the Obama’s and Sunahara’s birth records?”  Has that department been engaged in criminal activities of selling birth certificate numbers and birth certificates now and/or in the past.  Birth certificate fraud was a huge problem in Puerto Rico as well as more recently in Hudson County NJ in which staff were selling birth certificates. This was reported about a couple years ago and can be found via a Google search.  Imo, something very suspicious is going on in the Hawaii Health Department.  In their efforts to help cover-up Obama’s true legal identity, they may be revealing the tip of a much more extensive history of records manipulation and  fraud and criminal activities, past and/or present.  There needs to be a full scale and thorough investigation as to what has been going on with birth registrations in Hawaii since they became a state in 1959 with particular focus on the disposition of birth certificate registration numbers for children who died shortly after birth, and/or from a few days old to a couple of years old.  This is exactly the target that Bill Ayers (a good friend of the Barack Obama and a financial and political associate of Obama’s in Chicago) bragged about in his book Fugitive Days as a prime source for stealing birth records and creating a new identities for himself and others.  Did Bill Ayers after Obama moved to Chicago help Obama get that Connecticut SSN that Obama has been using since 1986 which the SSA says was never legally issued to Obama?  In Obama’s birth registration number case, it appears that with the help of Hawaiian staff in the Health Department at some point in time the birth certificate registration number for Virginia Sunahara may have been “transferred” to Obama.  If done, this could have been done directly by the staff or by allowing someone access to the system, possibly after hours, to do the dirty deed.  A full and thorough investigation  and audit of the birth registration records and records system, with subpoenaed original records subject to forensic examination and witnesses testifying under oath, is needed to be sure that birth registration certificates are not being sold or registration numbers are not being switched around in the HI Health Department records system for political or pecuniary purposes.  I commend Duncan Sunahara for standing up to defend his deceased infant sister and her historical and legal birth records and to force the Hawaiian Department of Health to follow the state laws.  CDR Kerchner (Ret)  http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

# # # #

Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama was born to a FOREIGN NATIONAL FATHER who was NEVER a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA.  For no other U.S. President in the history of the nation since the founding generation (who were exempt from the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S.  Constitution via a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1) was that the case, i.e., having a foreign national father who was never a U.S. Citizen or even an immigrant to this country. Obama being seated as the putative president is an outrageous violation of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the presidential eligibility clause.  Obama was not born with sole allegiance to the USA. Sole allegiance and unity of Citizenship at birth was the goal and purpose for putting the natural born Citizen clause into Article II Section 1 of the Constitution as to who could serve as president once the founding generation has passed away.  Obama (II) was born a British Subject via his foreign national father Obama (Sr.) who was a British Subject.   Obama is not a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to constitutional standards since he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship.  The founders and framers did not want anyone with foreign allegiance to ever get command of our military, i.e., be the president. Obama is constitutionally not eligible to be president and commander in chief of our military.

Adjectives mean something.  A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’  but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a national security clause inserted into our Constitution by John Jay and George Washington.  Read why the natural born Citizen clause is still important and worth protecting.

Five Citizenship Terms Mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same 

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Citizenship Types: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen

See evidence Obama forged the birth certificate posted on White House servers 27 Apr 2011: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684

See evidence Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 not legally issued to him: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742

See evidence of Obama’s forged and back dated draft registration here: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

This is not a fringe issue!  South Carolina Poll Results – A poll done by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that almost 2/3 of GOP voters want Obama eligibility investigated. This is not a fringe issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=340805

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressive’s long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

September 23, 2011

List of U.S. Presidents – Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud

List of U.S. Presidents – Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud

A Re-Post: Originally Written & Posted Online by CDR Kerchner (Ret) on Monday, February 14, 2011

Get a copy of the report here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/List-of-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-under-Grandfather-Clause-GFC-or-Natural-Born-Citizen-NBC-or-Seated-due-to-Fraud

List of U.S. Presidents – and their Constitutional Eligibility under the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 1 “Grandfather Clause (GFC)” or the “Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause”, or were they seated unconstitutionally due to Election Fraud. Under the Grandfather Clause the person must have been a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause the person must have been born in the USA to parents who were born Citizens of the United States when the child was born. Under the NBC clause it does not matter if the parents were foreign born but only that they both be U.S. Citizens (either born or naturalized) when the child is born in the USA. Both Chester Arthur and Barack Obama were unconstitutionally seated due to Election Fraud and their lying about their respective nativity stories and hiding and destroying their personal early life records. It has been recently discovered that despite the fact the Chester Arthur’s father ultimately was a U.S. Citizen, he did not naturalize until after his son Chester Arthur was born. Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen, never intended to be, was not even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent resident. Obama’s father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama’s father was a British Subject and at birth Obama was also a British Subject governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Obama was thus not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and is constitutionally ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our Military.

Download and/or print out a copy of this report on the U.S. Presidents here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/List-of-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-under-Grandfather-Clause-GFC-or-Natural-Born-Citizen-NBC-or-Seated-due-to-Fraud

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
P.S. Cross link to a report by Mario Apuzzo, Esq., on the eligibility of our 44 Presidents:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/citizenship-status-of-our-44-presidents.html

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,160 other followers

%d bloggers like this: