Washington Times National Weekly, 20 July 2009 issue – Advertorial on Page 9

Originally Written & Posted Online by CDR Kerchner @ Puzo1.BlogSpot.com: Sunday, July 19, 2009 @ 10:38 AM

Washington Times National Weekly, 20 July 2009 issue – Advertorial on Page 9

Newest version of Advertorial Series 2 inserted in tomorrow’s issue of the Washington Times National Weekly edition, on page 9. This one introduces to the readers of the paper and points out that Obama was a British Subject at birth in 1961. With citizenship of another country at birth, i.e., in Obama’s case British citizenship at birth he is not, and can never be, a natural born citizen of the USA. Also this insertion points out that the framers such as Franklin, Jay, Washington, and others used Vattel in the drafting of the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.http://www.scribd.com/doc/17478578/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-Advertorial-in-20090720-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-9

To help the cause and do more such advertorial insertions in national newspapers see: http://www.protectourliberty.org And to all the patriots that have helped to-date, I thank you.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

####

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC). Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

Originally Written & Posted Online by CDR Kerchner @ Puzo1.BlogSpot.com: Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:45 PM

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC). Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC). Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

by: Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)

While a natural born Citizen is obviously a Citizen at birth, not all Citizens at birth are natural born Citizens. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal.

There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401, that grants “natural born Citizenship” to anyone. The legal term of art “natural born Citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Title 8 Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “Citizen” or a “National” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., a basic “Citizen at birth”, i.e., a person entitled to the rights and privileges of membership in the society of our nation under our Constitution, the supreme and fundamental law of our nation. The Section 1401 law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law, not by nature. The legal term of art “Citizen at birth” is not the same legally as the legal term of art “natural born Citizen”. Simply note that in one case we are talking about who is at least an ordinary, basic “Citizen” at birth with no adjectives in front of the word Citizen, and in the other case we have two very important adjectives placed in front of the word Citizen by the framers of the Constitution, i.e., “natural born” Citizen. Since that term was used in the Constitution only once in Article II for singular most powerful office in our new federal government, the framers intended that it have special meaning. And the source of that meaning is written down and well known by legal scholars. That specific type of citizenship and “legal term of art” natural born Citizen was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise “The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law”, published in 1758, in which he said that … a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country. And this group or class of citizens are the most populous group of any nation.

Most citizens of the USA are natural born citizens. Most citizens of the USA were born in the USA to two parents who were citizens of the USA. And that is the pool of citizens that must be chosen from for the singular most powerful office in our nation, the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. Simple citizenship at birth by being born in the USA without regard to the citizenship status of both your parents … or by naturalization and swearing an oath to this country and renouncing all allegiances foreign kings, princes, and potentates later as an adult, is adequate for the offices of Senator, Representative, or a Governor of a state. But it is not sufficient to be the President under Article II, to Constitutional standards. Article II requires that the person to be eligible to be President must be a “natural born Citizen”. And that means that person must be born in the USA … AND … both his parents must be citizens of the USA.

Natural born citizenship status in a nation is granted by the facts of nature of your birth. No law or statute is necessary to grant it. The nations can make any law they wish to make a person a citizen at birth or later. But natural born citizenship can only be conveyed by nature by the facts at birth of the child. If you are born in the country of two citizen parents you are “naturally” … a “natural born Citizen” … a citizen too … but a specific kind of citizen who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military since the child when born has sole allegiance to this country and there is no claim on him/her by a foreign country or power as to their citizenship at birth by that country too. Natural born Citizens have unity of citizenship at birth. A natural born Citizen is NOT a dual citizen at birth. A natural born Citizen has no divided loyalty issues by his birth since the child was born in the country to two citizens of the country.

See this chart showing the five types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S Constitution:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/

And “natural born Citizens” are not rare in the USA. The “natural born Citizens” are by far the most populous group in the nation. And it from this group, under Article II of our Constitution, we are to choose our President and Commander-in-Chief, the group with sole allegiance at birth to the USA and only the USA, not someone who has foreign and/or dual citizenship and divided loyalties at and by birth.

Obama’s father was not a citizen of the USA, nor was he an immigrant to the USA, nor was he even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject via his British Subject father, per the British Nationality Act of 1948 which governed the status of children born to British Subjects. Obama thus was born with dual citizenship and allegiances and a foreign claim on his allegiance. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA and he is not eligible to be the President under Article II of our U.S. Constitution. He is a Usurper.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al
Help the Cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

####

The Chalice Show – Patriot’s Heart Broadcasting – BlogTalkRadio Network -10:30 p.m. EDT Sunday 5 Jul 2009 – Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress Update

Originally Written & Posted Online by CDR Kerchner @ Puzo1.BlogSpot.com: Sunday, July 5, 2009 @ 3:56 PM

The Chalice Show – Patriot’s Heart Broadcasting – BlogTalkRadio Network -10:30 p.m. EDT Sunday 5 Jul 2009 – Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress Update

The Chalice Show – Patriot’s Heart Broadcasting – BlogTalkRadio Network 9 to 11 p.m. EDT Sunday 5 Jul 2009 – Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress lawsuit update and discussion of the new publicity campaign to make more people aware that Obama is not an Article II natural born citizen to Constitutional Standards and to increase public awareness of the existence of this lawsuit. The Main Stream Media (MSM) still refuses to discuss the eligibility issue and thus more paid media Advertorial type advertising will be done using the following theme:
Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-Advertorial-in-20090706-Issue-Wash-TimesI was on the last 1/2 hour segment of the Chalice Show from 10:30 to 11:00 p.m. EDT. Below is the link to download and listen to the two hour show. The discussion of this case and the new advertising initiative begins 90 minutes in, the last half hour. Listen to it all or download it and fast forward to the last half hour where I discuss the case and the new publicity fund initiative: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/07/06/The-Chalice-ShowThe Chalice Show

Charles Kerchner

####

Kerchner: On the Sovereign and Sovereign Immunity

Originally Written & Posted by CDR Kerchner @ Puzo1.BlogSpot.com: Thursday, July 2, 2009 @ 11:47 AM

Kerchner: On the Sovereign and Sovereign Immunity

Kerchner: On the Sovereign and Sovereign Immunity

In the case of constitutional issues We the People and/or the Constitution created by We the People are sovereign. The fundamental law of our nation, the Constitution, can only be changed by amending it by the process provided in that Constitution, not by a branch of the federal government usurping or ignoring it. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by itself and certainly not with a simple majority vote. It takes a vote of 2/3 the members of Congress to put forward such an amendment to the several states and ratification by 3/4 of the several states of our nation. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. All rights and power not given to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the several states and to the People. See the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights for the details on that fact. We the People created the federal government enabled by the founding document, the federal U.S. Constitution. The Congress or the President cannot arbitrarily ignore the U.S. Constitution and those branches of the federal government cannot hide behind sovereign immunity. For if they can the Constitution is then no longer the supreme law of the land and the Congress and the President have placed themselves above that supreme law. We would no longer be a nation of laws if the supreme law of the land can be ignored and not enforced by the whims of the simple political majority in control of Congress.

I believe that Article I, Section 6, clause 1 protects the individual Senators and Reps from arrest and/or charges due to their speech and debate. It does not grant sovereign immunity to the Congress as a whole or the Senate as a body or the House as a body to totally ignore the Constitution, the “fundamental law” as Vattel describes such laws, and the foundational law of our federal government and nation. The sovereign power in our Republic is “We the People” and the Constitution we established to limit the power of the Federal Government, and thus the Congress which is part of that. Thus the Congress as a body in our government is not sovereign and thus cannot have sovereign immunity regarding charges that it as a body did not do its constitutional duty and/or ignored parts of the constitution. Who or what is the USA. It is the several states and We the People and the Constitution. It is not the Congress and it is not the President. The Constitution is the supreme and sovereign law. Congress is not sovereign and neither is the President and thus they cannot use sovereign immunity to betray and undermine the constitution. If the Congress is sovereign, then Congress would be the ultimate power and even be above the constitution. That is not our system of government. And that is not what Vattel taught either and wrote about a republic with a written constitution. The elected officials are our representatives and we acquiesce to them to run the government as long as they obey the Constitution and not ignore any part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and that these elected representatives act in a way to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our patriot ancestors and many who have served since fought and died to obtain and keep for us. The written Constitution is supreme and sovereign as that contract was established by We the People acting through the several states. And it states it takes 3/4th of the several states via agreement of the People of those states speaking through their respective legislative body to change that sovereign law, the U.S. Constitution.

We the People are the sovereigns and the Constitution is the supreme, fundamental, sovereign law in our federal system. The President and Congress are not above the law. No executive order or statutory law passed by them is supreme to the Constitution and the inalienable rights of We the People. I did not swear an oath to defend a man or any particular person serving as the President or a piece of land. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We the People retain the ancient right of the sovereign, which is us in our system, to bring a Quo Warranto charge against a usurper Putative President. And I did so in my lawsuit. Any order or law made by Congress or anyone else in our federal government which stands in the way of We the People’s inalienable right to protect our Constitution, which we created, from a usurper must fall. Those laws must fall by the wayside as subservient and that they are not applicable to blocking our inalienable rights and cannot be allowed to block the People getting answers in the federal courts to Constitutional questions. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I intend to do so.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

P.S. A printable and downloadable copy of this essay is available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17049463/

P.S.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####