Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Ad: Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States - 24 & 17 Jan 2011 Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5

Ad: Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States - 24 & 17 Jan 2011 Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5.

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance at Birth - by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/47436318/Obama-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-w-Venn-Diagram-24Jan2011-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-5


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)
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause
to increase public awareness of this issue:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

18 comments:

bdwilcox said...

Obama hands America over to the Chicoms
http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-hands-america-over-to-chicoms.html

Carlyle said...

Mario or Charles:

Patriots over at Citizen Wells blog have been harassed for some time by an "I know more than everyone else" lawyer who spews nonsense or venom more often than being helpful.

Today, he in particular has been ranking on you and your lawsuits and why they are mistakes.

You might initially see it as beneath your dignity to squash ants, but you could be a great help to your companion "soldiers in the fight" if you could take a look at what he has been saying and at least correct his most egregious false assertions.

Thank you for your consideration.

bdwilcox said...

Hawaii guv can’t find Obama birth certificate
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=252833

Puzo1 said...

WND report today that

"Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health."

Read more: Hawaii guv can't find Obama birth certificate http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252833#ixzz1BRfdJyBd

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=252833

Sallyal said...

May want to check this out. I signed up and my e-mail has been exploding with responses, all positive. May have to turn off the "follow" feature.

http://ipatriot.com/forum/topics/would-you-join-a-class-action?id=6306360%3ATopic%3A744&page=8#comments

bdwilcox said...

"I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school." -- p. 26, last paragraph, 'Dreams from my Father' by Barack Obama

http://books.google.com/books?id=HRCHJp-V0QUC&lpg=PA26&ots=PFey9W8MRE&dq=dreams%20from%20my%20father%20birth%20certificate&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=false

So a birth certificate exists by Obama's own admission. If it's not from Hawaii, where's it from?

But the real question that comes up if there's no Hawaiian Birth Certificate, why did Chiyome Fukino say that she has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures?

And where did the COLB come from? Robert Gibbs said he put it on the web, so he should know...

And what about American hero Lt Col Lakin? Hasn't he been vindicated?

So many questions come from this.

cfkerchner said...

Obama does not have a long form hospital generated birth certificate. Many in the world are finally catching up on what we've suspected and known for a long, long time. Obama's whole early life narrative is a fraud. This has been stated my most who follow this blog since even before the filing of Kerchner v Obama. But for Gov. AberCOMMIE's enjoyment, he should listen to this interview I gave on the Willy Cunningham show back in Aug 2009. People should email it to the Governor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

We are having an effect. We must keep the pressure on the fraud enablers in Wash DC and the major media. The latest ad in the Wash Times National Weekly is part of that effort.

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

MichaelN said...

Mario & Charles.

Maybe some valuable stuff here .....

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

Puzo1 said...

I of II

I just posted this comment at the CitizenWells web site. http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/purpura-et-al-v-sebelius-et-al-standing-v-us-constitution-first-amendment-rights-legalese-cited-to-perpetuate-legalese/ ,in response to personal attacks against me and the Kerchner case by someone who goes on the internet by the name of Free Speech.

"Free Speech,

You clearly do not understand that Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution does not allow for original jurisdiction over eligibility cases, for they are not “Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” Marbury v. Madison tells us that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot exercise original jurisdiction such as directly issuing a writ of mandamus to a cabinet officer of the President when the Constitution only gives it appellate jurisdiction over such matters. This is so even if Congress by statute tries to give the Supreme Court such original jurisdiction, for the Constitution is supreme and must be respected above any other law. So the very case that you cite informs that you cannot do what you are telling everyone I should have done.

What is more amazing is that you put forth your incorrect argument that the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over an eligibility case at the same time that you dismiss the Kerchner case on political question grounds.

You also do not understand the political question doctrine. Your citing of Marbury v. Madison on the political question doctrine is misplaced. The case simply has no application in the Kerchner case as you cite it. Marbury v. Madison actually shows that there is no political question in the Kerchner case. The Court there stated “where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.” The Court added that “[t]he province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to enquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.” The Court did not find any political question doctrine violation in Marbury because the law suit was not filed to challenge the President’s discretionary power to make Presidential appointments of political and confidential officers and agents who answer to him. Likewise, there is no political question problem in the Kerchner case. Obama does not have some discretionary power over whether or not he is a “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible for office. Nor does Congress have any discretionary power to confirm a person for the Office of President who is not constitutionally eligible for that office. I showed that the Kerchner case did not depend on any executive or congressional discretion, but rather on specific constitutional provisions, acts of Congress, and general principles of law. Moreover, I showed that both Obama and Congress had under the 5th and 20th Amendments a specific duty assigned by the Constitution and that my clients’ rights depended upon their performance of that duty. I also showed that my clients had been injured as a result of their breach of that duty which necessitated the Court granting them a remedy. Finally, if you should not know, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals did not rule either way whether there was any political question doctrine problem in the Kerchner case.
Continued. . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

Why did we sue Congress in the Kerchner case? First, it violated its duty under the 20th Amendment to protect my clients’ 5th Amendment rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by assuring them that only a qualified President-Elect, i.e., a “natural born Citizen,” was confirmed for the Office of President. Second, it is the only smart thing to do to sue a party to whom either the defense or the court or both will point and say that it is absent from the case when it should have been in the case because only that branch of government can provide the remedy requested by plaintiffs. Third, by suing Congress, the political question doctrine is avoided because we said that while Congress may have had the power to fix the wrong, it unconstitutionally refused to use that power to fix that wrong.

Are you also not the one that was telling everyone that I sued each individual member of Congress and how did I expect to serve them all and take discovery from each of them? Such a false allegation clearly shows that you really do not understand much of how a legal action works.

You have been camped out at the CitizenWells blog for some time now spreading false information about the Obama eligibility cases and the efforts of the eligibility attorneys. You make it your passion to be always the first one to start the thread and inject your propaganda into the discussion. I know what you are up to. Surely anyone with any reasonable intelligence can see right through your propaganda game and can conclude that you are not on our side.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

MichaelN said...

From:
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-originally-disqualified-by-hawaii.html

Copy,paste, sign and send to your Representative Congressman

QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS

QUESTION 1: Why, after including the legally required language for previous Democratic candidates in elections past, did chairperson, Brian Schatz and the Democrat Party of Hawaii, refuse to include the legally required language upon submitting it for the approval of that state party’s 2008 Official Certification of Nomination when they submitted it to Kevin B. Cronin and the Hawaiian Election Commission?

QUESTION 2: Did Kevin Cronin, Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer in 2008, approve the placement of Barack Obama’s name on the presidential ballot for the 2008 federal election, in spite of the fact that explicit language stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to run for president was omitted from the Official Certification of Nomination submitted by the Democrat Party of Hawaii?

QUESTION 3: Did Kevin Cronin, Chief Elections Officer, in coordination with the Hawaiian Election Commission, and HRS 11-113 (1)(d), notify Barack Obama in writing, of his eligibility or disqualification for placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot and what date did he provide this notification?

QUESTION 4: If a notice of disqualification was sent to Obama, upon receiving this notice from the Hawaiian Elections Commission, did Barack Obama file a request, per HRS 11-113 (1)(e), in writing to Mr. Cronin and what date did he submit this request?


QUESTION 5: Did Cronin schedule Obama to a hearing and what date was this hearing scheduled?

QUESTION 6: Where was Obama between October 20th and 24th, 2008?

QUESTION 7: Was Obama present in Hawaii during the time when a hearing was conducted with the Hawaiian Elections Commission regarding his disqualification from the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot?

QUESTION 8: Why did the Democratic National Committee author two separate Official Certifications of Nomination for Barack Obama, sending one version to Hawaii but not the other 49 states?

QUESTION 9: Did The DNC send two separate versions of its OCON to the Hawaiian Election Commission, and if so, why did it do this?

QUESTION 10: What secret evidence, which was obviously not accessible to the Democrat Party of Hawaii (the very state Obama was born in), did Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National Committee acquire to determine Barack Obama’s legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and, thereby, include such language in its OCON?

QUESTION 11: When it was determined that the state and national party authorities of the Democratic Party did not agree on the status of Barack Obama’s eligibility, did the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, Kevin Cronin, determine to include Obama on the Hawaii presidential election ballot with authority provided by HRS 11-113(b).

QUESTION 12: What documented evidence was used by the DNC, which was not available to the Democrat Party of Hawaii, to determine that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution?


COURTESY THE DAILY PEN

mcamelyne said...

It's time for an independent prosecutor to investigate election fraud by both parties, specifically proof of meeting the qualifications to be the party nominee. This puts Nancy Pelosi in the hot seat. Where is Ken Starr when we need him?

Carlyle said...

Mario - thank you so much. May the gods of reason continue to smile upon you.

The Stacker said...

Finally, I will be fully vindicated, as will you.

I TOLD YOU LONG AGO that by pure logic I knew he was not born at Kapi'olani.

Now that that is obvious (handwritten BC???)

THE DOMINOES fall. The whole story is fabricated.

BO Sr. is not his father. Period.

juniper55 said...

Here is the Daily Pen link with the full information on Hawaii's failure to certify Obama as eligible.

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/

Now the big question - what can we DO about this???

Puzo1 said...

I just wanted to share with everyone this comment that I posted at a blog that is heavily populated with hate and contempt-filled Obot operatives:

"As to your attacks upon me and my work, what I have written and said speaks for itself. All your mean-spirited, unfounded, and defamatory attacks upon me will not change it. It is too bad that a legal and constitutional question of allegiance and citizenship has become a political one because it is being debated within the context of whether Obama is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. I surely do not expect to be justly and fairly judged by you and your supporters who because of some stated and hidden political agenda demonstrate nothing but hatred and contempt for anyone who questions whether Obama is a 'natural born Citizen.'”

Greg Goss said...

is there an 8 1/2 11 PDF of any of these ads? I think a telephone pole campaign is in order. Especially at bus stops and subways.

cfkerchner said...

Hi Greg,

You can download a PDF copy of any and all the ads at the links from the images of them at this webpage. That will take you to the SCRIBD.com site where you can download them. You may have to sign up for a SCRIBD user ID to download them but such ID's are free. Download them and print them out and hand them out as fliers. Send them as an attachment to your Congress reps and Senators. Spread the word.

http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/archives.htm

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