A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

For Immediate Release - 29 November 2010 2:30 p.m. EST

A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

The "Roberts Court" of the U.S. Supreme Court in my opinion will be known in history as the "Neville Chamberlain Supreme Court", the great Obama appeaser court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

Appeasement due to fear that some immediate small amount of veiled and threatened violence from the far left socialists and Saul Alinsky goons, tyrants and bullies, and thus not doing the right thing early on to support the rule of law and the Constitution, ultimately leads to much bigger problems later. History has shown us that over and over. The Obama eligibility matter should have been fully and thoroughly addressed and openly investigated by the investigative reporters in the major media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries to get all of Obama's documents released to the public as part of the vetting process. It wasn't done. Congress should have addressed this when asked by 100s of thousands of constituent letters and petitions sent to them and when constitutionally it was required to so under the 20th Amendment. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose ignoring the problem and appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else. Now it is far worse. The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken top to bottom and bottom to top. And it will only get worse as our legal system and constitutional republic further deteriorates and the rule of law gives way more and more to appeasement of bullies and tyrants in waiting such as Obama and his far left Marxist cronies and puppet masters. Appeasement of the constitutional usurpers will not make it go away. It will only delay the inevitable and fester and grow and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reveals himself in a much bolder way and attempts to take away all our protections to our unalienable rights and liberty. Neville Chamberlain tactics never work with bullies, alinskyites, tyrants, and national socialists.

The U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. See below. Certiorari for our case was denied. The two justices appointed by Obama who in my opinion had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have! Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with the relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. There were recusals declared by these two Obama appointees in many other petitions including the one immediately before our petition in the orders list and the one immediately after. Imo, apparently the court needed all nine justices in the room to kill the petition. With the full court of 9 justices it's the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it's then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 ... financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO.

10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44359775/U-S-Supreme-Court-Order-List-562-U-S-dated-2010-11-29-Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Decison-on-Pg-15

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Obama Ineligible! Obama: I Tried and Lied but It Won't Go Away! Washington Times National Weekly - 29 Nov 2010 Issue - Pg 5

Obama Ineligible! Obama: I Tried and Lied but It Won't Go Away! Washington Times National Weekly - 29 Nov 2010 Issue - Pg 5
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44262283/Obama-Ineligible-I-tried-and-lied-but-it-won-t-go-away-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-2010-11-29-pg-5

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html

U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. See below. Certiorari for our case was denied. The two justices appointed by Obama who had in my opinion a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have! Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. There were recusals declared by these two Obama appointees in many other petitions including the one immediately before our petition in the orders list and the one immediately after. Imo, apparently the court needed all nine justices in the room to kill the petition. With the full court of 9 justices it's the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it's then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 ... financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO.

10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx

My Statement on the Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-supreme-court-has-chosen-appeasement-cmdr-charles-kerchner/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Washington Times - Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari at U.S. Supreme Court Conference on Tuesday 23 Nov 2010

Washington Times - Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari at U.S. Supreme Court Conference on Tuesday 23 Nov 2010

Update: No Decision Released Until Monday 29 Nov 2010
per SCOTUSblog

Supreme Court Orders Will be Posted Here at 10 a.m.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx

by: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

We are living through history in the making. Please read or re-read this historic Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to support and defend the Constitution ... in particular Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the presidential constitutional eligibility clause. Read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. Then meditate on the words in both and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. See the ad linked to below and via the image at the left for an overview of the Petition and the issues.

Washington Times -- Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 22 Nov 2010 issue, page 5: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43541103/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-on-Tues-Nov-23-2010-WTNW-pg-5

QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Further comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.

Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin

James Shields [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Again, please take the time to read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. The questions and the main brief are only 36 succinctly written and easy to read pages. Then meditate on the words therein and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. May God help us save our liberty and republic and protect us in the days ahead.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Unconstitutionally Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution

Ineligible and Unconstitutionally Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution

by: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Obama is NOT Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.
Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
James Shields [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump, amend, or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. We are a nation of laws, not men. We are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy where the current political whims of the the political majority can over rule the U.S. Constitution by a simple popular vote. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship
and Sole Allegiance At Birth

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Written: April 23, 2009
Reposted: November 18, 2010

Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.

Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel's, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.

Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional 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. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate's character and qualifications to be President.

Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers' meaning of what a "natural born Citizen" is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.

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 fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner will be on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate - Wed, 17 Nov 2010, 9:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) will be guests on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate on Wednesday, 17 Nov 2010, at 9:00 p.m. EST. The subject will be the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court including review of the four questions presented in the Petition. Two Justices, Sotomayer and Kagan, have been requested in the Petition to recuse themselves from this case in that they have a direct financial conflict of interest in the outcome of this case, i.e., their very appointments to the court were made by Obama. We have also asked the Justices in our Petition to take judicial notice of the Lt Col Lakin court martial in process and the Affidavit filed in that military trial by Lt Gen McInerney as to the impact that the uncertainty of the constitutional eligibility of Obama is having on our military whose members have all sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Recent activity in the case includes an Amicus Curiae Brief which was filed by the Western Center of Journalism in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. The uncovering and initial release to the public by this blog on 5 Nov 2010 of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) internal memorandum to members of Congress will also be discussed.

Listen to podcast replay at this link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2010/11/18/revolution-radio-kerchner-obama-the-constitution

Also stop by and read Dr. Kate's post-show blog on the show and the comments at:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/kerchner-and-apuzzo-interview-on-revolution-radio/

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on 30 Sep 2010 and is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on Tuesday, 23 Nov 2010. To read the Petition see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

--------------

P.S. A special request from CDR Kerchner:

Also, please cast your votes to Help the Cause to get the word out:

1st: Vote for the show topic for the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show to be a discussion of the legal term of art, "natural born Citizenship". Please add your vote (in addition to making a comment if desired) for this new TV Show topic suggested by JTX at the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show suggestion forum. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for the show topic to be "natural born Citizenship". Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/969299-natural-born-citizen-meaning-in-natural-law-s?ref=title

2nd: Vote for Mario to be a guest on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch TV show: Please add your vote here (in addition to making a comment if desired) to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for Mario Apuzzo. Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, see the protectourliberty.org site and help the cause with a donation:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Atty Mario Apuzzo & Mr Don Nelsen were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 16 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo & Mr Donald Nelsen, one of the four plaintiffs in the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit, were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 16 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST. The subject was the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court and the latest activity in that case including an Amicus Curiae Brief filed by the Western Center of Journalism in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

For more about the Jim 'Howie' Mandel Radio Show see: http://www.howieunveilsgodsshield.com/

You can listen to a podcast of this show at:
16 Nov 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-111610.mp3
Podcasts of prior Jim Howie Mandel shows covering the Kerchner et al v Obama et al case:
09 Nov 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-110910.mp3
05 Oct 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-100510.mp3
For podcasts of all Jim Howie Mandel shows see the lower half of this page:
http://www.latalkradio.com/Mandel.php

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on 30 Sep 2010 and is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on 23 Nov 2010. To read the Petition see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Please make a donation to help the cause if you can at:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

Ad: Kerchner v Obama Petition is Scheduled for Conference in U.S. Supreme Court on Nov 23rd - Wash Times National Weekly ed - 15 Nov 2010 - pg 5

Ad: Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 15 Nov 2010 issue, page 5:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42559111/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-15Nov2010-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly

QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.
Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
James Shields [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Les Naiman Show, WGTK 970, Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, Sunday 14 Nov 2010 6 PM EST

Les Naiman Show

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner were featured guests on the Les Naiman radio show, WGTK 970 in Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, on Sunday, 14 November 2010, 6 PM EST. The subject will be the status of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit which is currently on Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court, docket number 10-446.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT - PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

Link to WGTK 970 in Louisville KY: http://www.970wgtk.com/

You can listen to the show on podcast at this link. Note: we are introduced at about 8 1/2 minutes into the show after his initial monologue on some current events in the news: http://lesnaimanshow.podbean.com/2010/11/14/the-les-naiman-show-111410/

For more details on the latest activity of the Kerchner v Obama petition at the U.S. Supreme Court see this link: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/kerchner-et-al-v-obama-et-al-petition.html

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Please if you can, visit this site and donate to help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org

####

Daniel Webster Reveals that the Kerchner Petitioners Have Standing to Demand that Obama Show He Is A “Natural Born Citizen”

Daniel Webster Reveals that the Kerchner Petitioners Have Standing to Demand that Obama Show He Is A “Natural Born Citizen”

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Daniel Webster, known as the "Defender of the Constitution," was a famous orator and statesman. He argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, served as a U.S. Congressman, a U.S. Senator, and U.S. Secretary of State. In 1820, what later became known as the State of Maine separated from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This development caused the Commonwealth to seek to amend its constitution of 1780. The Commonwealth chose delegates to meet in convention for the purpose of amending its constitution. The town of Boston chose Mr. Webster as one of its delegates.

Mr. Webster served as chairman of the committee which was responsible for determining qualifications for those persons wanting to occupy public office. This committee recommended that “a simple oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth, together with the oath of office, should be taken by all persons chosen or appointed to office. . . . and that a profession of belief in the Christian religion no longer be required as a qualification for office.”

While his position related to retaining a profession of the belief in the Christian religion as a qualification for public office in Massachusetts, Mr. Webster’s statements go beyond just religion and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for they also apply to any qualification that the People may demand that a person meet in order to be eligible for any public office. Here are Mr. Webster’s words in convention as he comments on the committee’s report:

***

"Two questions naturally present themselves. In the first place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security of their government and its due administration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the people had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of the people. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure; and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what conditions they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than the notion that any man has a right to an office. This must depend on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opinions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for office. No man can be said to have a right to that which others may withhold from him at pleasure.

There are certain rights, no doubt, which the whole people, or the government as representing the whole people, owe to each individual in return for that obedience and personal service, and those proportionate contributions to the public burdens which each individual owes to the government. These rights are stated with sufficient accuracy, in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, in this constitution. " Each individual in society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to the standing laws." Here is no right of office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for office respecting age, property, residence, and taxation. But if office, merely as such, were a right which each individual under the social compact was entitled to claim, all these qualifications would be excluded. Acknowledged rights are not subject, and ought not to be subject to any such limitation. The right of being protected in life, liberty, and estate is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any, whatever be their age, property, or residence in the State.

These qualifications, then, can only be made requisite as conditions for office on the ground that office is not what any man can demand as matter of right but rests in the confidence and good-will of those who are to bestow it. In short, it seems to me too plain to be questioned that the right of office is a matter of discretion and option, and can never be claimed by any man on the ground of obligation. It would seem to follow, then, that those who confer office may annex any such conditions to it as they think proper. If they prefer one man to another, they may act on that preference. If they regard certain personal qualifications, they may act accordingly, and ground of complaint is given to nobody. . . .

Now, if the people may, without injustice, act upon this preference, and from a sole regard to this qualification, and refuse in any instance to depart from it, they have an equally clear right to prescribe this qualification beforehand as a rule for their future government. If they may do it, they may agree to do it. If they deem it necessary, they may so say beforehand. If the public will may require this qualification at every election as it occurs, the public will may declare itself beforehand and make such qualification a standing requisite. That cannot be an unjust rule, the compliance with which, in every case, would be right. This qualification has nothing to do with any man's conscience. If he dislike the condition, he may decline the office in like manner as if he dislike the salary, the rank, or any thing else which the law attaches to it. "

***

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. III, pp. 3-7.), accessed at http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=68

Indeed, Webster expresses an opinion that, under a government characterized by popular and elective office, the People have a right to establish qualifications for their elected officials before they may occupy any such office, for such office is “the free gift of the people.” He explains that no man has a right to an office, for the office is granted at the pleasure of the People to those in whom they feel “confidence” and with whom they share a feeling of “good-will” because they believe that person to be both fit and qualified for that office. He adds that the same People can decide at their “discretion and option” to change those qualifications as they deem necessary for their own safety and security.

Mr. Webster then explains how each individual has a personal right to receive protection from his or her government. Mr. Webster explains that each individual in society has in accordance with a legal process a personal right to be protected by the whole People represented by his or her government in his or her life, liberty, and property in exchange for which the individual grants to the whole People and its representative government his or her obedience and personal service. He states that this right to protection “is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any” whatever their condition. He also explains that qualifications for office are for the safety and security of the individual and the nation as a whole. He believes that such qualifications should be retained in the constitution agreed upon by the People so as to provide to them the maximum protection.

This is the same argument that I have made before the U.S. Supreme Court to show that the Kerchner petitioners have standing to pursue their constitutional claims against Obama, Congress, Pelosi, and Cheney, claims in which they demand that Obama conclusively show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Petitioners have a right to demand that only a person who is a “natural born Citizen” occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. As Mr. Webster explains, it is the Kerchner petitioners personal right to demand it, for the Constitution has decreed it for the benefit of protecting the life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property of every individual making up the People. Indeed, Obama has no right to the Office of President and Commander in Chief. He can only occupy that office at the pleasure, discretion, and option of the People which includes the Kerchner petitioners. And the Kerchner petitioners, showing that both Congress and the Executive have failed to protect them and their individual rights guaranteed to them under the U.S. Constitution and in their effort to therefore protect themselves, have every right to take their claims to a court of law for the purpose of enforcing their personal and individual right to that protection.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 10, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 09 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 09 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST. The subject was the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.howieunveilsgodsshield.com/

Listen to this show via podcast at this link:
09 Nov 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-110910.mp3

Listen to the show at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=howiekwix#g/u

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 which is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on 23 Nov 2010 see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

Read about this recently (5 Nov 2010) leaked to our lawsuit research team of the Congressional memorandum as to the talking point that Congress was prompted to tell concerned citizens when they wrote to Congress with questions about Obama's eligibility. It is clear now that Congress circled their wagons to defend their indefensible position in that they vetted McCain's exact citizenship status in the primary of the 2008 presidential election but did not vet Obama's, when questions were being asked in public about the citizenship status of both. That is unequal protection under the constitution and our laws and a violation of our civil rights. See this announcement for more details: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/members-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Please make a donation to help the cause if you can at:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices for Conference Scheduled for 23 Nov 2010

Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices for Conference Scheduled for 23 Nov 2010

See the new activity on the U.S. Supreme Court Docket at this link:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm

To read the Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 see this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

For More Information contact:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq., Jamesburg, New Jersey
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Tel: 732-521-1900, Fax: 732-521-3906
Email: apuzzo@erols.com

More information will be posted as we receive it.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Respondents Waive the Right to Respond to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Lawsuit

Respondents (Obama & the other Defendants) Waive the Right to Respond to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Lawsuit

There is new activity on the U.S. Supreme Court Docket today with an effective date on the docket of 3 Nov 2010.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm

1. The Respondents named in our Petition have waived their right to respond.

2. The Western Center for Journalism has filed a motion for leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in support of our petition.

To read the Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 see this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

For More Information contact:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq., Jamesburg, New Jersey
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Tel: 732-521-1900, Fax: 732-521-3906
Email: apuzzo@erols.com

More information will be posted as we receive it.

Update 1 - 06 Nov 2010:
Copy of Waiver by the Government received in the mail has now been scanned in and uploaded to SCRIBD.com. You can view it at this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41336760/Waiver-by-Respondents-in-Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-to-U-S-Supreme-Court

Update 2 - 06 Nov 2010:
To read the Amicus Curiae Brief filed for the Western Center for Journalism in support of our Petition for Writ of Certiorari see this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41345999/Amicus-Curiae-Brief-to-Support-Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-by-the-Western-Center-for-Journalism-Filed-by-Atty-Kreep

Update 3 - 06 Nov 2010:
Here are the applicable U.S. Supreme Court rules and regs regarding Amicus Curiae Brief filings in support or in opposition to Petitions for Writ of Certiorari:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41348870/Amicus-Curiae-Briefs-Supporting-or-Opposing-Petitions-for-Certiorari-Supreme-Court-Practice-9th-Edition

Update 4 - 08 Nov 2010: Petition distributed to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices for the conference scheduled for 23 Nov 2010.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. "natural born Citizens (NBC)" are "Citizens at birth (CAB)" but not all "CAB" are "NBC"!

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic: Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Likewise, "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens at Birth" but not all "Citizens at Birth" are "natural born Citizens"!

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT identically equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC) at Birth.

Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

by: Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

While a natural born Citizen is obviously a Citizen at birth, not all Citizens at birth are natural born Citizens at birth. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal. All "natural born Citizens" are Citizens at birth but not all Citizens at Birth are "natural born Citizens" at birth. If you cannot grasp that logic concept then try this analogy, "all trees are plants but not all plants are trees".

There are five types of Citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. All Citizens have equal rights as a member of the society but not all Citizens have the privilege and legal eligibility requirements to be the President and Commander in Chief of the Military under Article II of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.
There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401 that addresses "natural born Citizenship". The law addresses basic "Citizenship at Birth", i.e., who is a "Citizen by Birth", (which is needed under various situations and conditions of a child's birth spelled out in Section 1401) which requires such a man-made act of law to grant the Citizenship by an act of Congress, i.e., naturalized at birth by act of Congress. USC 1401 does not grant “natural born Citizenship" to anyone. Natural born Citizens do not need man-made laws to grant them Citizenship. The facts of nature of their birth do that. 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. They do not need statutory law to be considered Citizens of the nation. Nature and the facts of their birth in the country to two Citizen parents granted that to them, not Congress.
Most citizens of the USA are natural born citizens. Natural born Citizens of the USA are the three leaf clovers of the types of Citizens, not four leaf clovers. By the vast majority, 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. And the reason for this is as important today as it was when the founders and framers added those additional words to the eligibility clause in Article II. And given the vast power of the military today, having a President and Commander in Chief of the military with sole allegiance at birth to only the USA is even more so.

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 dual 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.

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic: Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Likewise, "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens at Birth" but not all "Citizens at Birth" are "natural born Citizens"! Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" of the United States!

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

Members of Congress Internal Memo--What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions - Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed

Click to Learn What Congress is Hiding
and the Truth About Natural Born Citizenship

Members of Congress Internal Memorandum -- What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions - Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed. This was the spin that the Members of Congress were given to keep the American electorate at bay and confused in the debate about Obama's eligibility issues all the while the Congress did nothing to investigate the matter in a congressional hearing like they did for similar concerns about John McCain.

We have obtained a copy of the talking points memorandum put out by a lawyer for the Congressional Research Service to the Members of Congress back in April 2009 as to what to tell their constituents when they write to the Members of Congress and ask questions about Obama's eligibility. Now we know why all the answers coming back to constituents sounded like they were written by the same person and were full of the same obfuscations, omitted facts from history, and half truths & non-truths.

This internal memorandum to Members of Congress is the smoking gun that absolutely proves that every Member of Congress knew that Obama was never vetted by anyone or any institution as to his constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the military ... and yet Congress did NOTHING about it. This lack of vetting by anyone was detailed starting on page 19 of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Complaint filed in Jan 2009.

This copy was obtained via the diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of "Tom Deacon" who obtained it from a Senator's office. Now we know the talking points the DC insiders and politicians have been groomed with to feed to their constituents who have been asking questions about the eligibility issues. Thank you Tom. Here is the link to the internal memorandum:

Link to read or get your copy of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) internal Congressional Memorandum about the Obama eligibility questions issue:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/Members-of-Congress-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-in-Answer-to-Obama-Eligibility-Questions

The Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt Obama was Born in Hawaii:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html

Obama May be a "Citizen of the United States" but He is NOT a "natural born Citizen of the United States":
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

To read the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 which is now scheduled on the court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on 23 Nov 2010 see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

Update: YouTube video about this CRS memo find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIHhhgulww&feature=player_embedded

Mario Apuzzo
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. The Congressional Research Service is part of the Library of Congress. It theoretically works for the Congressional Committees which means IT WORKS FOR THE PARTY THAT CONTROLS CONGRESS (in this case the Progressive controlled Democratic Party). Every report they issue (on the request of COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN who want them), is slanted to the ideology of the committee in charge because lawyers are partisan. 90% of them on this project are liberal. They are the same lawyers the White House used to research their legal position in the fight to kill the Citizens United lawsuit when they fought McCain Feingold ...
L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney; Erika K. Lunder, Legislative Attorney;
Kate M. Manuel, Legislative Attorney; Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney; Michael V. Seitzinger, Legislative Attorney
####

We need your help to fight this battle to get the truth out. If you can help the cause of truth and our battle to protect our liberty, please visit this link and make a donation. Thank you.
http://www.protectourliberty.org
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
####