Showing posts with label Charles Kerchner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Kerchner. Show all posts

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Obama challengers: Doc proves president ineligible

They quote Vattel's 1758 "The Law of Nations," a document used widely by the American Founders, where it states in Vol. 1, Ch. 19, Section 212: "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

His organization, ProtectOurLiberty.org, also explains that under the British Nationality Act of 1948, when Obama was born in 1961 he was a British subject.

The goal, according to Apuzzo, was to avoid a president with divided loyalties – to America and to another nation to which his father or mother owed loyalty.

"This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) at the time of birth assure that one is born with sole natural allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives)," the organization explains.
"Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and sole natural allegiance from birth only for the president and commander in chief of the military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to make decisions for our national survival. It is required of the president because such a status gives the American people the best chance that a would-be president will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation.

"The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the constitutional Republic, the office of president and commander in chief of the military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the 'natural-born Citizen' clause that gives the American people the best chance to keep it that way."

When President Obama finally presented his long-form birth certificate yesterday (April 27, 2011), that ended the "birther" controversy, right? Well, not so fast! Unless you have been following the story on WorldNetDaily (WND.com), you may not be aware of what the actual controversy is about. The mainstream media has always referred to the "birthers" as people who didn't believe that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii or anywhere else in the United States.

However, the majority of the press has had it just a slight bit wrong all this time (almost 3 years). At least among those of us that had followed the story, mostly on WND.com, the question was not where he was born as much as it was whether or not Barack Obama is qualified to be president. In the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, it specifies that to be eligible to be President, a person must be at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen.

So, while nearly 100% of Americans will now finally agree that Obama was definitely born in Hawaii, the real controversy is far from being over. I am not talking about those "birthers" that will say that the birth certificate is a fake. Those people are out on the loony fringe, and pretty much the equivalent of the "9/11 truthers." The true controversy regarding the constitutional eligibility issue is the part of the story that the liberal mainstream media has refused to cover since the very beginning. This column does an outstanding job in explaining just why the "natural-born citizen" clause of Article II, Section 1, would make Barack Hussein Obama not eligible to be President of the United States.

This is far from being case closed, as The Donald (Trump) was patting himself on the back for all day yesterday. The President thought he was putting the "silliness" to rest, because he has "big problems to solve." And Glenn Beck will have continued frustration when he finds out that the distraction will continue. I'm just sayin'...


*  *  *

Obama challengers: Doc proves president ineligible
'They are going to have to face the music on this at some point'

By Bob Unruh

April 27, 2011 ~ 8:07 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

The "Certificate of Live Birth" document released by the White House today, if authentic, assures Americans that their president was born in Hawaii as he has said, according to two participants in a lawsuit who challenged the president's tenure in the Oval Office.

But they say it also proves he's ineligible under the Constitution's requirements to be president.

According to Mario Apuzzo, the attorney who argued the Kerchner vs. Obama case, and the lead plaintiff, retired Navy Cmdr. Charles Kerchner, the documentation reveals that Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, was the father when Barack Obama Jr. was born.

That, they say, would disqualify Obama because of the Founders' requirement in the Constitution that a president be a "natural-born Citizen," commonly understood during the era of the beginnings of the United States to mean a citizen offspring of two citizen parents.

The Kerchner vs. Obama case, as have some others, challenged Obama on two grounds: that he had not proven his U.S. birth and that even if that was documented, he stilled needed to meet the requirements of being a "natural-born Citizen."

That's in Article 2, Section,1, which states, "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."

"They are going to have to face the music on this at some point," said Kerchner, whose allegations never were decided on their merits after the courts created a roadblock by determining Americans don't have "standing" to demand the Constitution's requirements be followed.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo agreed.

"Assuming that it's valid, that he's born in Hawaii," he said, "It confirms who his father was. His father was not a citizen."

What the president released:

Image released by the White House April 27, 2011

READ MORE at WND.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Did the birth announcements prove Obama was born in Hawaii?

Various liberal mainstream media pundits have said ad nauseum in their attempts to ridicule "birthers," that the birth announcements that appeared in 1961 in the two Hawaiian newspapers prove that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, and that he was Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. However, Mr. Kerchner has found that there was a problem with the birth announcements in 1961, and Obama's birth announcements could very well be a case of fraud so that he would have U.S. citizenship.
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.
Newspaper Birth Announcement Ads in 1961 in two Hawaiian Newspapers do NOT prove Obama was physically born in Hawaii

By CDR Charles Kerchner
Friday, April 16, 2010

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.

WND.com, 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.

READ FULL STORY at "A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers" (Blog)

Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!