CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

October 5, 2015

Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961) and Discussion of Ted Cruz’s Foreign Birth Status Questions

Click on the image for more on the issues

Click on the image for more on the case

Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961) and Discussion of Ted Cruz’s Foreign Birth Status Questions

See this U.S. Citizenship case and decision of the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court, Montana v Kennedy (1961), re the importance of the citizenship of the father when a child is born in a foreign country with only the mother being a U.S. Citizen re Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility status (Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a foreign national father): or 

While this case does not go directly to the issue of “natural born Citizenship”, which is required per the presidential eligibility clause in our U.S. Constitution as to who can be President and CinC, as it only addresses basic “Citizenship” gained by statutory man-made laws, it is still interesting to know about in regards to prior Supreme Court decisions re children born overseas to a foreign national father.  Under the naturalization powers of the U.S. Congress they can make, liberalize, or later take away paths to basic statutory Citizenship gained by a man-made law/statute.  Subsequent U.S. statutes made gaining basic U.S. Citizenship less stringent. And Congress has in the last several decades since 1961 continually done that over the years. And they plan to continue to do so.  For example, many now in Congress wish to allow the illegal immigrants to gain U.S. Citizenship.  But such statutory laws can never make and take away “natural born Citizenship” gained from Natural Law and the Laws of Nature, which is a person born in the USA to parents who are both U.S. Citizens when their child is born. Although the political parties via Congress have quietly tried to legislate and redefine natural law citizenship, they have failed every time. All attempts at such by liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans (RINOs) died in committee.  Congress and the political parties cannot change the Laws of Nature.  See the various attempts listed in section five at: 

So what do the constitutionally subversive major political parties resort to and do now … just make a joint pact in 2008 to ignore words in the Constitution with the help of the enabling major media.

Back to Ted Cruz and the Montana v Kennedy (1961) Supreme Court discussion of facts of that case and the decision.  If Ted Cruz would have been born before 1934 in a foreign country such as Canada, with a non-Citizen father (Ted Cruz had a non-Citizen father), Ted would not even have been a Citizen of the United States, let alone a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards.  Under revised later more generous man-made laws of Congress Ted did get basic naturalized U.S. Citizenship at birth from his mother.  However, even though he inherited basic statutory naturalized U.S. Citizenship from his mother at birth via U.S. naturalization acts passed by Congress, Ted also inherited Cuban or Canadian citizenship from his father, based on his father’s exact status then, since his father up until the time of Ted’s birth in Canada, they were still living in Canada and Ted’s father was not a U.S. Citizen, nor was he even close in time to applying for it.

Fast forward to now and we see Ted after deciding to run for President decided to renounce he Canadian citizenship.  But I’ve heard no word as whether he renounced any Cuban citizenship he may have had from birth gained via his father.  Did Ted’s father renounce his Cuban citizenship in Canada?  No one knows?  But legal renunciations of any of one’s dual-Citizenship parts after one’s birth does NOT in any way change the conditions of your exact Citizenship status at birth. Ted was born a dual/multiple Citizen of more than one country. Ted was not a “natural born Citizen” when he was born, i.e., with sole allegiance to only one country!  And that is what the founders and framers of our Constitution intended and understood.  Future President had to have sole allegiance and unity of citizenship in one and only one country at birth – the United States. The founders and framers did NOT wish that any future President would have “foreign influence” or allegiance claims on them by or at birth.  For national security reasons, they wanted the future Commanders in Chief to have sole allegiance to only the USA.  Obama, a self proclaimed Citizen of the World and with an unknown unproven birth narrative to 100% certainty and using various forged key ID documents, is a classic example of why they put that requirement in there. Obama does not meet the test.  The political parties decided to ignore that part of the eligibility test in 2008.  Now they are at it again. Ted does not meet that test either and never can. An important national security clause in Article II of our Constitution is being ignored by the major political parties and the enabling major media for several candidates now – Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal.  I assume it is because the both major political parties want to ratify forever more the precedence of what they did in the 2008 election cycle with Obama.

Under Natural Law and the understanding and intent of the founders and framers of our Constitution, with Ted being born in Canada to a non-U.S. Citizen father and having more than one allegiance claim and national citizenship at birth, Ted is NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards and thus is NOT eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military, even if you like his politics.  A copy of the Montana v Kennedy (1961) case holding is shown below:


U.S. Supreme Court

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)

Montana v. Kennedy

No. 198

Argued March 22, 1961

Decided May 22, 1961

366 U.S. 308




Petitioner’s mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized.

Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. Pp. 366 U. S. 309-315.

(a) R.S. § 2172, granting inherited citizenship to children born abroad of parents who “now are, or have been,” citizens, applies only to children whose parents were citizens on or before April 14, 1802, when its predecessor became effective. When petitioner was born in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship for foreign-born children, and it applied only to children whose fathers were citizens. Pp. 366 U. S. 309-312.

(b) Section 5 of the Act of March 2, 1907, which provided that

“a child born without the United States of alien parents shall be deemed a citizen of the United States by virtue of . . . resumption of American citizenship by the parent,”

is not applicable to petitioner, since mere marriage to an alien, without change of domicile, did not terminate the citizenship of an American woman either at the time of petitioner’s birth or at the time of his mother’s return to the United States, both of which occurred in 1906. Pp. 366 U. S. 312-314.

(c) A different conclusion is not required by the testimony of petitioner’s mother that she had been prevented from returning to the United States prior to petitioner’s birth by the wrongful refusal of an American Consular Officer to issue her a passport because of her pregnant condition. Pp. 366 U. S. 314-315.

278 F.2d 68 affirmed.





Again,  also visit and see this site re the 1934 law change for children born abroad where only the mother was a U.S. Citizen:

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

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

ProtectOurLiberty WebsiteSpaceMy BlogSpaceDocs Collections Re ObamaSpaceMy YouTubeSpaceMost Recent Full Pg AdSpaceAd ArchivesSpaceFliers/HandoutsSpaceBlock AdsSpaceSheriff to Sheriffs – Sheriff Kit ProjectSpaceGet A Sheriff KitSpaceInterviews-Audio/PrintSpaceBooksSpaceGoat’s LedgeSpaceContact Me

September 28, 2015

Blast from the Past: A Suggested Narrative – How Obama is Born in Kenya and yet has a Hawaiian Birth Registration Record

Felony Federal Crimes Have Been Committed by Obama.  Click on Image for the Evidence

What Other U.S. President in History Has Government Officials and Family Members in a Foreign Country Saying He was Born There

What Other U.S. President in History Has Government Officials and Family Members in a Foreign Country Saying He was Born There.  None Until Obama!

Blast from the Past:  A Suggested Narrative – How Obama is physically Born in Kenya but still Obtains Hawaiian Birth Registration Record

By:  CDR Kerchner (Ret)    Originally Posted Online:  Sat Jul 11 2009 @ 4:13 pm
Updated:  Mar 04 2012, Jun 9 2013, and again Sep 26 2015 — Re-posted on my blog Mon Sep 26 2015

– – –

First, a comment about my narrative. Very little about Obama’s early life narrative has not been subject to constant changed and revision by Obama himself during various stages of his adult life prior to running for high national office to suit his then current agenda and objectives.  As a genealogist of many decades experience and familiar with putting together such things as proven data, unproven data, records, statements of relatives, and other tidbits about a person over time to form a plausible narrative to explain the alleged “facts” given the information in hand  at the moment of writing, and always subject to update as more “facts” are discovered which support or dispute the suggested narrative, I cogitated on the “facts” about Obama as known to me from early 2008 until the early summer of 2009 and finally wrote this in June 2009 to try and explain things.  I thought I’d re-post this suggested narrative, with updates, to try to explain events we’ve seen to-date regarding the Usurper in the Oval Office. If you have Twitter, Facebook, and email lists, feel free to “tweet” or forward this narrative to others. Thanks.

– – –

A proposed narrative to explain the various seemingly conflicting statements by various people made about Obama’s birth in Kenya and birth records in Hawaii

By:  CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) – written 11 Jul 2009 and last updated on 26 Sep 2015

Underage U.S. teenager in Hawaii gets pregnant via a significantly older married man and foreign national from Kenya which would have been a very unusual event in 1961.

Mother of teenager is in total shock over the event as would have been many mothers of teenage girls getting pregnant in 1961 and says to her daughter you have ruined your life and will make going to college much harder for yourself and convinces the teenage girl to accept the suggestion of Obama Sr. that she should go to Kenya in the 2nd trimester or early 3rd trimester of her pregnancy with the plan to give up the baby to the Kenyan natural family and relatives of the natural father of the child to be raised in Kenya by them.

Mother travels to Kenya either directly from Hawaii or via Canada. If she was indeed married to Obama Sr. as claimed she would have been able to get a British passport as the wife of a British Subject, Obama Sr.  Traveling via Canada would allow her easier access to Kenya since as the spouse of a British Subject she would be flying from one British Commonwealth nation, Canada, to a British Colony. That would make travel to and entry into Kenya much easier. And getting into and out of Canada to and from the USA for an American citizen (the mother) was easy back in 1961.

The Kenyan paternal step-grandmother of the child attends Obama’s birth in Kenyan hospital in Mombasa Kenya and is ready to take custody of the child and raise the child for the foot-loose and fancy-free natural father with multiple wives. [Note: The Kenyan paternal step-grandmother Sarah Obama has stated she was there at the birth of Obama II in Kenya and held him in her arms in Mombasa Hospital and also stated at another time that the President of the United States passed through her hands. The birth in Kenya of Obama II is corroborated by many statements by Kenyan government officials such as the Kenyan Ambassador to the USA who stated on a radio show that Obama was born in Kenya. Also several members of the Kenyan Assembly stated such on the record and it is recorded in the minutes of their Assembly meetings.] Many more examples stating Obama was born in Kenya such his own published biography in 1991 and by many other people and many other publications over many years prior to Obama deciding to run for President in 2007 are found at this link.

After the birth of her child in Kenya, the U.S. teenage mother is supposed to return to Hawaii without her child, or fly directly to Washington State, or fly to Washington State via Vancouver, Canada, leaving the child with the natural father’s family in Kenya and restart her life back in Hawaii and/or in college in Washington State minus the child … and go to college, re-starting her life anew. In 1961, a pregnant teenage girl giving up a child to restart their lives anew was not unusual.

But nature and maternal instincts throws the plan a curve ball. Maternal instincts kick in and mother cannot leave the baby in Kenya, either due to pure maternal instincts or in seeing the poor conditions in Kenya that her child would be raised in with a mostly absentee father over there. Thus she changes her mom’s plan and she takes the baby and Kenyan hospital birth certificate issued by the Mombasa Hospital to the American Embassy or consulate in Kenya and shows them the Kenyan Birth Certificate for her child and “explains” the baby was born unexpectedly in Kenya while there visiting her “husband’s” family. U.S. officials then stamp her passport as traveling with an infant child.

Mother gets on plane or ship carrying the child and travels back to Hawaii and appears at the airport or port upon arrival with the new baby in tow, or to Washington State, or to Vancouver, Canada, and calls her mother in Hawaii telling her what she did, much to the shock of her mother, the child’s U.S. grandmother. Baby easily is passed through U.S. entry officials due to the U.S. Embassy stamp on mother’s passport and the supporting Kenyan birth certificate showing her, a U.S. citizen, is the mother, or Obama’s mom brings him across the border from Vancouver, Canada, to Washington State to start college in the fall of 1961.

The date of arrival back in the USA is on or about 4 Aug 1961. Obama II would likely be a few weeks old by that time putting his real date of birth sometime in mid or early July 1961 in Kenya.

Child’s U.S. grandmother is very much beside herself at this change in plans by her daughter, the mother of the child. The child’s grandmother then knowing or learning from legal advisers how lax Hawaiian birth registration laws were in 1961, then cooks up a plan and scheme with the child’s mother, to lie to Hawaiian officials and swear and sign an affidavit at the birth registry office that the child was born in Hawaii at home on 4 Aug 1961, the circa date of return to the USA and not the real date of birth, with no witnesses but them, in order to get the child U.S. citizenship (a highly desirable status) to make future travel and life easier on the family and new child.

They committed this fraud and lie and cover-up simply to gain U.S. citizenship for the child, a highly coveted status for any child, not knowing that this child might someday grow up and try to become the President and thus risk having their fraud, plans, and lies exposed.

Birth registration office then routinely issues the announcements to the two newspapers, as was the office’s custom at the time, i.e., to send the papers lists of babies birth registrations, of the birth event which at its source was only based on the false sworn testimony of the grandmother or mother.  If the mother was not in Hawaii at the time, the grandmother may have even forged Stanley Ann (nee Dunham) Obama’s signature on the affidavit since there is no independent corroborative evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was even in Hawaii in Aug 1961. There are on pre-natal care records or post-natal care records for Obama with any doctor, nurse, or mid-wife in Hawaii. There is no record of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama being in HI or anywhere in the USA from circa the very early spring of 1961 until she shows up in Seattle WA with her infant child in late Aug or early Sep 1961. Thus the birth notices in the newspapers are not independent data; they came from the same source, the false sworn statements from the mother and/or grandmother that the child Obama II was born in Hawaii, that is – registered as born at the grandparents home in HI with no independent third-party witnesses or medical attendants, when he was actually not born in HI. HI birth registration laws were so lax back then that this was easily done.  Few if any would question such a registration back then.

Thus under this narrative the birth records in the vaults in Hawaii may be simply sworn affidavits of the mother and grandmother saying Obama was born at home with no witnesses, all based on lies and fraud, which seems to be a common occurrence with Mr. O’s entire life. Obama’s birth may be REGISTERED as having occurred in Hawaii, but he was not physically born there.  And any current information currently in the records of the Health Dept in HI may have been added via later amendments upon Obama’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro or amended by Obama himself as a politically well connected adult (a U.S. Senator).  Such adult amendments would permitted by law to correct or “flesh out” the original limited (and likely falsified) record, especially from an adult with a powerful law firm backing his political aspirations and to help him.  Or as has been alleged by many, when Obama sought high political national office, additional forged documents were secreted into the HI Health Dept records to protect Obama the presidential contender to cover-up his birth registration fraud and other birth registration and certificate fraud that is alleged to be going on in HI similar to what was uncovered and exposed in Hudson County NJ.

Also there is this to consider, a couple years into Obama II’s early life, he may have been legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii (with those records hidden to us like many other records for Obama).  Lolo was the 2nd husband of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama.  Thus, Obama’s legal name of record in the Hawaiian system is now still Barry Soetoro or Soebarkah, or something else.  Thus Obama cannot show the world what Hawaiian authorities are sending him and thus the need to forge and alter documents before proffering them to the world via the internet images to conceal from the public what was in the original records and how they got there AND the fact that there have been amendments made at various times. Possibly he was quietly and secretly working to have his named changed back to Barack Hussein Obama II in the Hawaii system and/or circa 2007-2009 even having an amended birth certificate entered into the Hawaiian Health Department system to support Obama’s own self-created life narrative.  That would allow the HI authorities to say in a carefully parsed and worded statement that the “birth records” in their possession match the data that Obama has put out. It may now now match for key points in Obama’s created life narrative, but it did not prior to Obama probably amending his birth records in the HI system (i.e., whatever original was filed in 1961 and subsequent adoption changes made a few years later). He likely decided to file the amended birth record after he decided to run for President.  Thus one would expect to find more than one amendment of the his original birth registration which was likely a falsified registration using the lax birth registration laws in HI.  Also notice that the HI authorities never say that the PDF document on the White House servers is an identical 100% true and correct copy of exactly what they have in their birth record system in HI. The HI authorities are into this cover-up for Obama up to their eyeballs but they still are trying to maintain plausible deniability by carefully parsing their statements and letters to those who inquire and those that they choose to answer and not just ignore.

Members of Kenya’s Parliament state on the record and it is recorded in the Assembly Minutes that Obama was born in Kenya

When the truth and facts do finally come out, it will be interesting to see how close this suggested narrative using the facts, data, statements, which we now have access to from two sides of the world, which I have analyzed as an experienced genealogist and composed this narrative to fit that data in hand thus far, actually fits the reality of what happened back in the spring and summer of 1961.

This suggested narrative is thus hereby offered to the world to explain events and facts as revealed thus far.  It is subject to change as new facts emerge. Questions, comments, and feedback are welcome … OBOT [Obama Zombie Robot, aka OZBOT] disinformation and misinformation spreading types excepted of course. The OBOTS are reminded to re-read the blog rules near the bottom of the right frame.

Get a PDF file and printer friendly copy of this report here:

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

P.S.  A radio show appearance I did back in August 2009 in which I explained much of the above on air to Bill Cunningham as I had it formulated in my mind then which is of course updated above: CDR Kerchner (Ret) on Bill Cunningham Show – WLW 700 Cincinnati OH – Aug 2009

P.P.S.  Obama’s “short-form” Certification of Live Birth (COLB) placed online in June 2008 is a computer created forgery:

P.P.P.S.  Obama’s “long-form” Birth Certificate and other key identity documents are forged per Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio “cold case posse” investigation:

P.P.P.P.S.  Of course no matter where he was born he can never be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States since his father was a foreign national, not even an immigrant, and never a Citizen of the United States.  Read why here: Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth

“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.

September 17, 2015

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2015: 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 No It Was Not! | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Obama Not Constitutionally Eligible to be the President and Commander of our Military. Click Image for the Proof.

Obama Not Constitutionally Eligible to be the President and Commander of our Military. Click Image for the Proof.

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2015: 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 … No, It Was Not!

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., P.E. (Retired)
17 September 2015 – 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.  Another version of Hamilton’s proposed Constitution and which principles were stated during the convention’s deliberations per Madison notes and journal (see work of Farrand – pg 619), was given to Madison near the close of the convention for inclusion in Madison record of events for the convention. Hamilton’s proposed Constitution was not accepted.

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 rightly 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 treatise on 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 proposed principles for a Constitution and a presidential citizenship eligibility requirement therein requiring that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth.  See Madison’s comment in his journal of the convention re this fact in which it reports as follows:  ” … Copy of a paper Communicated to J. M. by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philada. 1787, which he said delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.  …” —  3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 619-630 (1911) – page 619.  But that citizenship status for who could be President 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 via George Washington, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign influence or 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 and recommended clause added the additional adjective of “natural” before simply being a “born Citizen” which 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”:  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 not 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.”


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:

July 29, 2015

Blast From the Past – June 2008 – Obama’s “Short-Form” Birth Certificate “CERTIFICATION of Live Birth aka COLB” Form a Computer Generated Forgery

Obama's short form and long form birth documents are forgeries

Obama’s short-form and long-form birth documents are forgeries

Obama Short Form Birth Certificate Released in June 2008 is a Computer Generated Forgery. Click on Image for Info

Obama Short Form Birth Certificate Released in June 2008 is a Computer Generated Forgery. Click on Image for Info

Blast From the Past –  June 2008 – Obama’s “Short-Form” Birth Certificate “CERTIFICATION of Live Birth aka COLB” Form a Computer Generated Forgery

The media has a short memory with far left politicians like Obama.  They are all to quick to drop mention of any Obama scandal when a new scandal comes along, and then another one, if they even covered the first one very much at all.  And they also don’t like to confront Obama about his lies and changing stories – born at Queens Hospital then born at Kapi’olani Hospital.  But neither hospital would clearly and unambiguously verify and confirm Obama’s allegations.  Also, Obama touting he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia in 1991 through 2006 then changed it to born in Hawaii when he sought high national office.  And then the subject of this post.  Remember the short-form birth certificate, actually a CERTIFICATION form. This first forgery was allegedly the only document Obama could get.  Lou Dobbs got canned from CNN for questioning the document and the statements from Obama’s team that this was the only document available.  Lest we not forget, here with is a Blast From the Past to refresh our memories of what lies and ID fraud we had to live with from June 2008 re Obama up until the new lies and fraud started in April 2011 when the forged long-form was foisted on the American electorate under pressure from Donald Trump, Dr. Corsi’s new book coming out soon then, and my running full page ads in the Washington Times National Edition in the weeks leading up to Obama releasing the online forged PDF birth certificate document on 27 April 2011 questioning Obama’s documents and his constitutional eligibility:   See the research evidence the short-from was forged via links here:

# # # #


[Sheriff Arpaio – Obama ID Docs Fraud – Congress Must Act!]

[Sheriff Mack – Obama ID Documents Are Fake!]

Click on image for details

Click on image for details about Obama’s forged Draft Registration Card. Copy obtained via FOIA request.

Click on the Image for Details about Obama's Forged Birth Certificate and Selective Service (Draft) Registration Form

Click image for details re Obama’s forged long-form birth certificate proffered as on-line image in Apr 2011.

Download a “Sheriff’s Kit” package of evidence of Obama ID document fraud: and/or

Copy of AZ Sheriff’s Office CCP Commander & Chief Investigator Michael Zullo’s sworn affidavit attesting that Obama’s ID docs are forged:

Copy of evidence that Obama’s Selective Service (Draft) Registration Card is forged:

View and get the Maricopa County AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse Investigative Reports directly from their website about Obama’s forged ID docs:


Obama the Enigma: Click on the image to learn more about Obama he does not want you to know.

Obama the Enigma: Click on the image to learn more about Obama he does not want you to know.

Obama's short form and long form birth documents are forgeries

Image of Obama’s short-torm birth certificate proffered as an on-line image in Jun 2008. Obama’s short-form and long-form birth documents are forgeries

A warning from the past — some conspiracies are very real and are also large and well organized and in process for a long time. Such is the nature of old-school KGB and SDS Communist activities, and more recently Marxist-Fascist groups temporarily allied with Radical Political Islamist activities, in the USA. My enemy’s enemy is my friend is the old adage. And to the Marxist and Islamist a strong USA is the enemy. The target and goal of the seditious political conspiracy we are currently faced with is to destroy our U.S. Constitution, our Republic, our culture, and dramatically weaken our military.

Remember this quote from history. But when reading it today substitute Marxist-Facist or Islamist for the current threats we face: “We must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism [anti-American Marxist-Leninist-Fascism allied against us with Radical Political Islam] are being steadily advanced because many of us do not recognize the means used to advance them. … The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.” Quote by: J. Edgar Hoover former FBI director. Source: Elks Magazine (August 1956). His message applies today equally as well as it did when he stated it in 1956.

Marxist/Communists are trained to lie. It’s their modus operandi to deceive their true objectives. Obama is not just a pathological liar, he’s an ideological liar:

Lying is permitted in Islam. Obama is a secret member of Muslim Brotherhood. They are permitted to lie in furtherance of their Islamic objectives and they are using the Islamic deception principles of TAQIYYA and KITMAN on steroids to hide their anti-American activities.

Obama was named Liar of the Year. Obama lies continually to cover his true nature and objectives.

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

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

ProtectOurLiberty WebsiteSpaceMy BlogSpaceDocs Collections Re Obama SpaceMy YouTube SpaceMost Recent Full Pg Ad SpaceAd Archives SpaceFliers/Handouts SpaceBlock Ads SpaceSheriff to Sheriffs – Sheriff Kit Project SpaceGet A Sheriff Kit SpaceInterviews-Audio/Print SpaceBooks SpaceGoat’s Ledge SpaceContact Me

June 20, 2015

CDR Kerchner (Ret) Responds to Professor Gutzman’s Dodgy Comments About Vattel

Emer d Vattel - Author of The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. Click on Image for More Details

Emer d Vattel – Author of The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. Click on Image for More Details

CDR Kerchner (Ret) Responds to Professor Gutzman’s Dodgy Comments About Vattel

In the video below, listen to Professor Gutzman’s attempt to diminish the writings and words of Vattel as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause in  Article II of our U.S. Constitution, apparently in an effort to support the eligibility of Ted Cruz who was born in Canada to a non-U.S. Citizen father:  His position thus would also continue to support the eligibility of Obama who also had a non-U.S. Citizen father and whose exact and true birth location has been the subject of debate and discussion for the last 7 years. This 2013 interview of Professor Gutzman has been re-surfaced recently by Cruz supporters.  Join the discussion here and/or read my comments about Professor Gutzman’s remarks below.

[Editor’s note:  Get a PDF copy of CDR Kerchner (Ret)’s response and article here:]

I listened to Professor Gutzman’s comments in the above video. Here are my comments.

The purpose of having the term “natural born Citizen” as a constitutional requirement for future presidents and commanders in chief or our military was as a “strong check” against “foreign influence”, per John Jay’s letter to George Washington, on the person who would hold that office in the future. They wanted a person born with Sole Allegiance and Unity of Citizenship to the USA and only the USA. See this article for more on that point: They would never have wanted a person born with dual or tri citizenship and attendant multiple allegiances and foreign influences on them at birth to ever gain command of our military. As with anything dealing with our Constitution, if you wish to understand terms therein we need to go back to original intent and understanding as to why the founders and framers chose the words they did. We need to understand the Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why the term “natural born Citizen” was chosen by the founders and framers. The Why was they wanted a person with sole allegiance to the USA at birth, and only the USA, for future commanders in chief of our military.

See: The Three Legged Stool Test for Natural Born Citizenship to Constitutional Standards:

Now some specific comments about what Professor Gutzman said and also what he omitted from Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 212 of Vattel’s writings. First, he does not give the full name of Vattel’s book. And that is important to the debate on its content. It was titled The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law.  “Natural Law” is key to this debate because the term under scrutiny is a natural law term, “natural born Citizen”.  Any legal term with the word “natural” in it refers to Natural Law and not to positive, man-made law. Vattel’s book was a treatise on Natural Law. And Natural Law forms the foundation of other types of law. And the founders and framers where keenly interested and aware of Natural Law as evidenced by the opening of the Declaration of Independence wherein it specifically cites the “Laws of Nature”, i.e., Natural Law.  And the Law of Nations was mentioned in the Constitution also in reference to defining Piracy. So the founders and framers were keenly aware of Natural Law and the Law of Nations.  And Vattel was their number one choice and reference on those subjects.

I own both a French and English copy of Vattel’s “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”. Regarding the comment that Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law being written in French, the professor does not mention that most of the key founders and framers were multi-lingual and specifically they were fluent in French, which was the diplomatic language of that time frame.  The French were our allies in our Revolutionary War against England.  When he read part of the section 212 and he read the French word “naturels” he failed to acknowledge that that in 1781 the French word naturels, years prior to the writing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, had been translated in treaty correspondence with the French to mean “natural born” in U.S. English. Thus the USA founders in U.S. English understood the term “the naturels” when used in the context of discussion of the matter of Citizenship in the USA or in the case of England being a Subject of the King, they translated the adjective and term and understood it to mean “the natural born”.  See: 

It also should be noted that the very title of Vol. 1, Chapter 19 in which “natural born Citizen” is defined, is “Des citoyens et naturels” which in the USA meant to the founders and framers, “The natural born Citizens”.  They got the idea and meaning of “natural born Citizen” from Vattel and other writers in Europe of the Enlightenment. They did not look to English Common Law to define and understand the citizenship terms in our new federal Constitution and Constitutional Republic. They discarded English Common Law when it came to Citizenship in the new nation. They looked to Natural Law and the Law of Nations to found our new form of government, a Constitutional Republic, and to determine who would be its initial citizens and the subsequent natural born Citizens, i.e., the children born in the country of citizens (both parents, born or naturalized).

The professor also neglects to read all of section 212 in which after Vattel states to be a “naturel” one must be born in the country of parents who are citizens, and since at that time married women could not have independent citizenship and the citizenship of the husband determined that of his wife and children, Vattel goes on to state that emphatically the father must absolutely be a citizen of the country for the child to be a citizen of the country at birth.  Vattel does not say the citizenship of the mother and place of birth do not matter. He clearly said it does in the prior clear cut definition of the naturel Citoyens, the natural born Citizens. But Vattel in the balance of section 212 further reinforces the importance of the citizenship of the father. Per Vattel not having a father who was a Citizen of the country you were born in absolutely precludes you from being a natural born Citizen of that country and that it is only your place of birth and not your country. The citizenship of the father controlled and determined the citizenship of his wife and his children. It takes two tigers to naturally create a tiger and two lions to naturally create a lion. Likewise it takes two Citizen of the country to create a natural born Citizen when the child is born in the parents’ country.

In the cases of Obama, Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal the citizenship of their father when they were born is clearly a relevant issue.  None of them had a U.S. citizen father at the time of their birth and thus they are not “natural born Citizens” of the USA to constitutional standards. In addition, for the case of Ted Cruz he was clearly and admittedly not born in the USA either in addition to not having a U.S. Citizen father when he was born. Thus Cruz misses natural born Citizen of the USA status on two counts.

Read and learn the constitutional citizenship status for all our Presidents since the U.S. Constitution was adopted:

Only the Laws of Nature can create a “natural born Citizen”. No man-made, positive law such as the Act of Congress Title 8 Section 1401, adopted pursuant to its naturalization power granted to it under our U.S. Constitution can do so. That law does not even mention “natural born Citizen” nor does the word “natural” appear in it anywhere. Those who conflate “Citizen” at birth created by man-made laws such as Title 8 Section 1401 with the natural law term “natural born Citizen” at birth, are being illogical and are spreading confusion and disinformation. See this link for more on that:

The professor in his 2013 interview was carefully picking and choosing words, and ignoring others, in his readings and discussions about Vattel’s book/treatise to try and make the case that Obama and Cruz are constitutionally eligible. They are not.

 As to English translations, there was a prior English translation of Vattel done circa 1759/1760 in England that Professor Gutzman did not mention. However, the 1797 is considered the better translation. But the founders and framers were using the 1775 edition edited by Dumas which was in French, as attested to by Benjamin Franklin. See: In regards to the 1797 English language translation which correctly translates Vattel’s des naturel Citoyen to “natural born Citizen”, the 1797 edition was just confirming and clarifying what the world at that time knew as to what Vattel meant and as was implemented in the U.S. Constitution several years before. And it was widely used in the new and great constitutional republic in the new world., the USA. And it was used to defend the rights of U.S. natural born Citizens in the disputes with England on the high seas leading up to the war of 1812.

Do words come into existence and meaning only by their instant creation in a dictionary or legal writings first and only then at the exact time of printing said book. Or were they there and understood before that print date and in use for some time in society? Use common sense.

 The 1797 translation of Vattel’s treatise into English simply was an improved translation from the original French and it confirmed and clarified to English speakers and readers what Vattel meant by his term “Des Citoyens et naturels” and/or naturel Citoyens, and his definition of same is therein clearly written. And the founders and framers knew and understood what it meant and that Vattel was their source when they chose the term, natural born Citizen. The 1781 treaty negotiations translation I mentioned previously prove that. When it came to the U.S. Supreme Court cases in the first 100 years of the USA they clearly looked to Vattel’s writings on issues of Citizenship, quoting him literally in a couple cases, and saying in at least one case that Vattel was the best on the matter of Citizenship issues.

See: for some example cases.

When the professor in the soft ball back and forth discussion in the video finally admits that he’s not sure and says “I don’t know”, he is in effect saying what we Constitutionalists all have been saying since 2008, we need the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this. And as Chief Justice Marshall said as to words and matters in the Constitution, … the U.S. Supreme Court should have taken up a case if it goes to the Constitution, as it does in this matter on the meaning of “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards as it applies in Article II.  The U.S. Supreme Court should decide it once and for all instead of ducking the question for the last almost 7 years.  The U.S. Supreme Court should have taken up the Atty Berg case in the summer of 2008 and decided the question right then and there re Obama.  In my 2010 petition to the U.S. Supreme Court we specifically said the question would come up again in the future. See:

Now the Pandora’s box is open and we have people not even born in the USA and with non-U.S. citizen fathers and twisting words and conflating two different legal terms and arguing they are eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military.

For more on the term “natural born Citizen”, see the prior historical  and legal writings on the term and also my writings on that term at: and  and .  Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: and Part II: Also see these papers and writings on Vattel’s influence of the founders and framers:

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

ProtectOurLiberty WebsiteSpaceMy BlogSpaceDocs Collections Re Obama SpaceMy YouTube SpaceMost Recent Full Pg Ad SpaceAd Archives SpaceFliers/Handouts SpaceBlock Ads SpaceSheriff to Sheriffs – Sheriff Kit Project SpaceGet A Sheriff Kit SpaceInterviews-Audio/Print SpaceBooks SpaceGoat’s Ledge SpaceContact Me

« Previous PageNext Page »

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,385 other followers

%d bloggers like this: