Is This What the Deep State Truly Fears? | by Sharon Rondeau | @ ThePost&Email
IN A SECOND TERM, WOULD TRUMP INVESTIGATE OBAMA’S “DOCUMENTS?”
(Feb. 26, 2020) — On Wednesday afternoon, citizen researcher, blogger and retired Navy Commander Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. tweeted to President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, his thoughts on the “Deep State” and any potential probe the president might order into the findings that Barack Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are fraudulent.
“One of [the] major reasons the Deep State is after Trump is because he was questioning Obama’s pres[idential] eligibility & missing birth certificate,” Kerchner tweeted to Giuliani, who has been researching what he alleges is massive corruption involving the Obama regime, Ukraine, China and possibly other countries.
“Trump was labeled a Birther,” Kerchner noted in his tweet. “They fear Trump will some day investigate Obama key forged ID docs…”
Over a period of months in early 2011, Trump publicly called for Obama to release his original birth record to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, leading the White House on April 27 that year to post an image said to represent Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate from Hawaii.
During the Obama years, The New York Times and other mainstream outlets as a bloc adopted and applied the term “birther” to anyone questioning Obama’s birthplace or eligibility, including Trump. Many Americans harbored doubts as to Obama’s eligibility in response to conflicting articles, many from the very same newsrooms [click here for examples], reporting Obama as having been born in Indonesia or Kenya and not Hawaii, as he claims. …
First, a comment about my narrative. Very little about Obama’s early life narrative has not been subject to constant change 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.
By: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Written: 11 Jul 2009 Last Updated: 28 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.
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 birth records system 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 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 very 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.
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.
“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.
The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” | by Attorney Mario Apuzzo
Bob Quasius at Café Con Leche Republicans [in 2013] said:
“The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.”
[Editor’s Note: click here for more on Ted Cruz, Kamala Harris, and others who lack natural born Citizen of the United States status.]
Quasius’ argument is the classic example of Jack Maskell’s formal and informal logical fallacies of what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is which are contained in his two Congressional Research (CRS) Memos. Jack Maskell wrote in his CRS memo published in 2009:
“[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that ‘natural born citizen’ means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including any child born ‘in’ the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’” In this memo, he also added: “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”
Maskell made his 2009 statement with little force and certitude. He said that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” “appears to support the notion” as to what the “natural born Citizen” clause means. A “notion” is defined, in relevant part, as: “1. A general idea 2. a belief; opinion 3. an inclination; whim.” Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language 410 (1983). Here is another definition: “1: Idea, conception 2: a belief held: opinion, view 3: whim, fancy .” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 480 (1974). And this “opinion” only “appears to support” that notion. Here, we can see that Maskell did not give us a clear and definite statement as to what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, he only put forth a theory that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” supported this general idea, belief, or opinion of what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is.
While his 2011 statement contained more force, Maskell still stated that a “natural born citizen” “would mean” any person who is a “citizen by birth” or “citizen at birth,” regardless of the means by which the person obtained that birth status. Maskell said “would mean.” That means that the meaning that he gave to a “natural born citizen” is conditioned upon something else also being true. But he did not tell us what that something else is, let alone demonstrate that whatever it is, is true. He also stated that “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements.” As we shall see below, this is not true, for there are U.S. Supreme Court cases which have addressed the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen” and that is a presidential eligibility requirement. … Continue reading this legal essay about who is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, and the logical fallacies about same that were put out by the totally politicized Congressional Research Service to justify the running of Article II constitutionally ineligible candidates in both major political parties, and the comments about same at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html
(Jun. 25, 2019) — One of the Democrat wanna-be candidates yearning for the opportunity to get bludgeoned by President Trump in the 2020 general election is Sen. Kamala Harris. You will recall from her classless performance in the now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, she believes that the mere allegation of a crime – and particularly a sexual assault crime – is sufficient to warrant a conclusion of guilt in the alleged perpetrator.
Due process and the presumption of innocence – let alone actual proof or competent evidence of the actual commission of a crime – are principles of law which are foreign to Democrats in general, and seemingly altogether alien to Ms. Harris in particular. Interesting trait in a lawyer…, no?
These circumstances make it all the more ironic and hypocritical – par for the course with Democrats, of course – that Harris, a former San Francisco District Attorney and California Attorney General, would now claim that, because of her “prosecutorial” experience, she is the best situated candidate among the Democrat field to “go after Trump” once she is elected to the presidency. She has even analogized her zeal to pursue President Trump with a reference to a “rap” sheet concocted against the president.
But here’s the juicy part: she recently promised a crowd of supporters in South Carolina that she would “prosecute the case against Trump on the debate stage” prior to the election, if she were the Democrats’ nominee. Please…, please…, D’s…, nominate her and put her on stage next to Trump. Your faithful servant would pay a big-time sum for tickets to be in that same room when the questions begin flying.
One of the first questions that Trump should pose to Harris (regardless of whether it is ‘on topic’ as dictated by the moderators) is this: “Are you eligible under the Constitution as a ‘natural born Citizen?’” Her answer would likely be: “Seriously? You’re going to the ‘birther’ nonsense again? Of course I’m eligible. I was born in Oakland, California.” Trump (or whoever the moderators might be) should follow up: “But when you were born, were your parents already U.S. citizens?” Her likely response: “That doesn’t matter. I have it on good authority that anyone born here, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, is a natural born Citizen.” Trump should then grin and say: “Prove it.”
P&E readers, you see where this is going, right? As your faithful servant has attempted to explain over the years, it was the demonstrable intent of the Founders, for anyone willing to see, to absolutely restrict eligibility to the office of the “Chief Magistrate” – the President – to a “natural born Citizen,” and only to someone who met the criteria for same. That restriction, adopted by the Founders in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, was taken from § 212 of The Law of Nations, the seminal work of one Emmerich de Vattel, a 17th Century jurist and philosopher. In order to be a “natural born citizen,” as opposed to a “native born citizen” or a “naturalized citizen,” both of one’s parents must be, at the moment of the person’s birth, citizens of the country where the birth occurs.
DeVattel’s work, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, was continually in the hands of the Founders as they labored over the drafting of the Constitution and was the work “most widely cited in the 50 years after the [American] Revolution.” See United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 462, n.12 (1977).
As it turns out, Kamala Harris was born to a Tamil Indian mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, and a Jamaican father, Donald Harris. Given that one Barack Hussein Obama II continues to refuse to remove the dark cloud of constitutional ineligibility still hanging over his usurpation of the presidency, Ms. Harris might expect similar problems.
Bear in mind, Monsieur Obama’s “original Hawaiian birth certificate,” thought by many to be (and likely in reality) a computerized forgery, listed his father as being a citizen of Kenya, not the United States. Thus, even if the .pdf image of a document posted to the Internet which he claims is his “real deal” birth certificate were treated as “authentic,” he would still have been ineligible. The fact that his mother (some would even question that “fact”) was a U.S. citizen in 1961 is irrelevant: because his father was never a U.S. citizen, he was, as we say “from the get-go,” ineligible to hold the office of the president. The fact that he occupied the office illegitimately merely recognizes that he “got away with it.” So far…, that is.
Returning to the eligibility of Ms. Harris, because the available public records fail to confirm that both her mother and her father were, on October 20, 1964, naturalized U.S. citizens, her eligibility remains very much in doubt. The several deeply flawed and deceitfully structured Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) Memos and Reports from 2009, 2011 and 2016, seeking to prop up the purported (but false) legitimacy of Monsieur Obama as a natural born Citizen, will not help her. Memo to P&E readers: as noted here, the 2009 CRS “What to Tell your Constituents… Memorandum” has been scrubbed from the Scribd.com website and is no longer accessible there, but you can learn about what it said here, here and here. [Editors note: I have updated the link from “2009” in the upper part of this paragraph to a working URL to see the 2009 CRS Memo.]