Newspaper Birth Announcement Ads in 1961 in two Hawaiian Newspapers do NOT prove Obama was physically born in Hawaii

Originally Written & Posted Online by CDR Kerchner @ Friday, April 16, 2010 @ 10:37 PM

Newspaper Birth Announcement Ads in 1961 in two Hawaiian Newspapers do NOT prove Obama was physically born in Hawaii

Newspaper Birth Announcement Ads in 1961 in two Hawaiian Newspapers do NOT prove Obama was physically born in Hawaii

The two announcements in the Hawaiian newspaper in 1961 only prove a birth was REGISTERED there, not that he was born there. A registration was allowed under Hawaiian law in 1961 to be made by any family member via a simple mail-in form to the state Health Department. No 3rd party or independent witnesses to the birth were required. The statement of a family member registering a new born child as born home was accepted into the registration system with little or not questions back then. Thus the family could lie and register a birth in Hawaii when it occurred elsewhere, anywhere in the world, simply to get the child U.S. citizenship, a highly coveted status then and now. The false registration was not done so he could be President some day. The false registration was done to get the new born child citizenship for that time. It was a case of birth registration fraud to illegally gain U.S. citizenship for a foreign born child of the family.

Given Hawaii’s very lax birth registration laws in 1961, as I said, Obama could have been born anywhere in the world and if Obama’s maternal grandma filled out the form and mailed it in to the birth registration office saying Obama was born at their home in Hawaii, a vital record would be created. And the birth announcement was on the list of births registered that week and which lists were sent routinely each week to the two newspapers. With data systems it is GIGO, garbage (false registration data) in yields garbage out (fraudulently created birth record in the state’s vital record system out). And with a falsified birth registration in the system, subsequent computer print outs in later years and carefully crafted statements by Hawaiian officials that they have a record of Obama being born in Hawaii can be obtained and made. But those printouts and statements are being made based on a falsified vital record mail-in registration form back in 1961., an online newspaper, did investigations on this first in 2009. They also did follow on stories in 2010 into how the newspaper ads were placed in those two papers in 1961 and the research revealed that the birth announcements were placed by the state, not the family. See these two article links below and many other articles as to how the Honolulu Advertiser and the other sister pub got the birth announcements from a list from the state each week, not from the families. These were public service birth announcements provided by the state. Garbage/falsified data on the available and simple birth registration mail-in form sent into the birth registration office in 1961 by a fraudulent filing by Obama’s grandmother to get her foreign born new grandson U.S. citizenship, illegally but easily given Hawaii’s lax laws back then, yielded a birth announcement in the paper for a birth in Hawaii that was registered there but did not physically occur in Hawaii. Obama was physically not born in Hawaii, as James Orengo, Member of Parliament, in Kenya recently attested to, as have other MPs in Kenya and as have members of Obama’s paternal line family in Kenya.

2009 investigation into the two Obama Birth newspaper announcements:

2010 follow-up investigation report in the Obama Birth newspaper announcements:

My explanation to Bill Cunningham on his nationally syndicated radio show in the summer of 2009:

See the name of the section at the top of the newspaper column which clearly tells you the source of the information in the announcement lists, “Health Bureau Statistics”:

The main stream media is deliberately lying about how these birth announcements got into those newspapers when they tell America that the family placed the ads and that someone was anticipating that someday Obama would run for President. First the family did not place the ads, the state did. And the family member simply filed the false birth registration data on the mail-in form for the obvious purpose of gaining the child U.S. citizenship, a highly coveted status then and now. Birth registration fraud occurs today and it occurred then. And it occurred in 1961 with Obama. The Hawaiian authorities were victims of the birth registration fraud by Obama’s grandmother back in 1961 and now instead of admitting it, they are covering up that there is no independent evidence to verify the false registration that Obama was born in Hawaii. No hospital or doctor’s name no medical attendants name at the home. Nothing. Just the false testimony of the grandmother on a mail-in form that no one verified back in 1961.

With the contradictory statements being made in Kenya by government officials there and members of the family there that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a native born American, the true legal identity needs to be investigated in a court of law. Any reasonable person looking at the evidence for and against Obama being born in Hawaii would say there is reasonable doubt he was born in Hawaii and would demand a further investigation. But the media is covering up for Obama by making false statements to protect him. The media created Obama, covered up for him, and is still a propaganda organ for him. This is a national disgrace.

CDR Charles Kerchner

Glenn … Are You Listening? Another Open Letter to Glenn Beck from Commander Kerchner

Originally Written & Posted Online by CDR Kerchner @ Sunday, January 31, 2010 @ 9:29 PM

Glenn … Are You Listening? Another Open Letter to Glenn Beck from Commander Kerchner

Glenn … Are You Listening?
Another Open Letter to Glenn Beck

By: Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)

Posted 01 February 2010 at:

Dear Glenn Beck :

Are you listening to the People? Are you listening to the members of your “912 Project” who are trying to talk to you on air about the “elephant in the room” of American political discussion and legal question about the 2008 election. Or are you still telling your call screeners to block their calls and/or moderate them out of your chat rooms just like the members of Congress do? Congress is not listening to the People. The election in Massachusetts showed you the results of what happens when the elected officials do not listen to the People. Are you not listening to the People anymore either or just selectively listening? The questions are not the questions of a fringe percentage of the people. See these surveys:

A very large percentage, probably 75%+, of the “912 Project” folks and “Tea Party” folks believe that Obama is NOT constitutionally eligible to be the President or certainly at least want the matter fully and thoroughly discussed in public and investigated by the courts and want Obama’s hidden and sealed early life original paper records unsealed and revealed. Photoshop’d digital images on the internet are legal proof of nothing.

And then there is the issue for the 1961 newspaper ads you tout as infallible proof. They were not placed directly by family members but instead generated by the Hawaiian Health Department upon any birth registration in their system, no matter what the source. Have you heard of the GIGO effect for birth registration systems. Falsified birth registration records in yields false record reports in Hawaiian newspapers out. This was likely done by the grandmother simply to get her newborn grandson U.S. citizenship, despite where he might have really been born or not. Births could be registered as having occurred in Hawaii with a simple mail-in form filled out by one family member alleging the birth occurred “at home” with no independent witnesses. No one back then in Hawaii checked the credibility of the facts placed on that form. No one at the time was thinking 45 years into the future that this child might someday be a candidate for President and thus someone would question and check the underlying credibility of the facts of the false birth registration in Hawaii after relatives accounts in Kenya surfaced saying that he was born there instead and when newspaper accounts in Kenya reported that Obama was Kenyan born. No one in 1961 ever thought this document fraud would be uncovered. Like much of Obama’s early life background it was a decision of expediency by the family for that moment in time. Simply getting the highly valued basic U.S. citizenship for the child is the goal of any falsified birth registration in the U.S., today as well as back then. Simple as that. Listen to this discussion on the Bill Cunningham radio show.

Glenn, are you giving these people who have supported you a voice? Or are you silencing their voices from getting on the air? If you don’t believe me, take a survey of them. Ask them on the air simply, “Do you believe that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” of the USA to constitutional standards?” And then put the responders and callers on the air to answer you and discuss it with you. But listen to them also and don’t just immediately shout them down and ridicule them at first breath.

Not only does Obama have questionable constitutional eligibility because of questions as to where Obama may or may not have been born, but in addition to that and even more importantly it is because Obama’s father was NOT a Citizen of the USA, or ever an immigrant to the USA. We are a nation of immigrants and Obama’s father was not one of them. Obama was not the son of an immigrant as was falsely stated during his inauguration. The American people were lied to by Obama through the whole campaign enabled by a complicit media. Obama’s father was not even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama was born with multiple citizenship and more specifically, he had allegiance to Great Britain at birth via his British Subject father. Obama was thus born a British Subject too under the British Nationality Act of 1948. Obama does not dispute this but won’t allow a full public discussion or debate on the impact of this in Congress or in the courts. How can a British Subject be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the USA to “constitutional standards”. The Democratically controlled Congress investigated McCain’s citizenship status when asked by doubters of McCain but not Obama’s when asked by doubters of Obama’s. Have you ever thoroughly investigated why?

Progressives have deceived many Americans with rewriting history and the meaning of words. But have they fooled you too on the meaning of the unique legal term of art “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution? Or do you have your mind totally closed to the real truth for some reason known only to you? Or have threats been made against you and your family and/or your career if you tell the real truth of the meaning and intent of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our Constitution as it applies to Obama.

Obama may or not be a Citizen or a 14th Amendment “born Citizen” of the USA depending on where he really was born. But he is certainly NOT an Article II “natural born Citizen” (to constitutional standards) as is required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as the President and Commander in Chief of the military. See these URLs and the attached graphic for a visual presentation of the difference between a Citizen and a “natural born Citizen”:

So Glenn, you believe that Obama is a Citizen. You said so on the air when you call doubters crazy and used Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals #5 “ridicule tactics” on your own listeners. Are you being deliberating deceptive?

Glenn, the real question is, do you believe Obama is a “natural born Citizen” as is required in Article II of the Constitution and as the framers of the Constitution understood that legal term of art to mean in 1789 and which has been affirmed since by at least four U.S. Supreme Court decisions which have never been overturned or reversed by any subsequent Supreme Court decision. The progressives have covered up these cases up or obfuscated their meaning in discussing “natural born Citizen” on the internet. That is function of Obama’s “blog squads”, to deceive people. They have filled Wiki and other sites with false and misleading information and redefined the meaning of words and historic legal terms of art in an attempt to rewrite history on the internet. But the truth is there in the cases for every intellectually honest person to read and understand. You can find those four cases and other relevant cases discussed in this excellent legal essay on “natural born Citizenship” by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

I suggest you do some more research on the founders and framers intent for the “eligibility clause” to be President and Commander in Chief of our military in Article II, to constitutional standards. Research who put that unique legal term of art into Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II and why! Obama had to repeat the Oath of Office a second time because it was not to “constitutional standards” the first time. Constitutional standards are far more important than popular opinion standards, especially when it comes to who can be President and command our military and who will reliably provide for the protection of our liberties and the national security of our nation.

Read the above link and the cited Supreme Court cases. Dissect the Apuzzo essay and cases he cites. Analyze them. Then present what you learn by doing an explanation of each case on your radio and TV shows if you have the courage to do so. Or have you been scared off doing it with threats to you and your family? Or does your fear of damage to your career trump your love of the U.S. Constitution and protection of the future of our Constitutional Republic for your kids and grandkids to come?

Are you in denial on this constitutional issue? Are you doing all that you can to expose the full truth about Obama and his early life and hidden and sealed records? Only you looking into the mirror each morning know the answer to that question. There are no heroes. Only ordinary people living in heroic times. How will you be remembered in this historic time and calling to preserve our liberty? Many have been called before and many in standing up to protect our liberty have perished or lost everything, except liberty. Where are you standing regarding the “elephant in the room” question of the first half of this century and the progressives’ hail-Mary pass to their Socialist/Marxist America goal line with getting Obama elected even though he is not constitutionally eligible? Will you let it stand? Will you work to tell the real truth and discuss openly Obama’s birth Citizenship status and questions on the air or will you allow the progressives to silence you as well, as the rest of us have been silenced who do not have the microphone you do?

We ask of you a full, thorough, and fair public “on air” investigation, discussion, and debate with your listeners on the question of Obama’s birth citizenship status to “constitutional standards” as it applies to Article II of our Constitution.

Read again my previous open letter to you at this link for more information.
“An Open Letter to Glenn Beck”

I challenge you to debate Attorney Mario Apuzzo, a constitutional expert on Article II, on this subject on the air.

If you choose to avoid that challenge, then little old me would be happy to meet with you in private or public to discuss this more fully. You can contact me via my website link which is below my signature.


Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
P.S. Link to my first Open Letter to Glenn Beck: