“YOU HAVE TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THIS BATTLE”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jun. 21, 2010) — Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired), is the lead plaintiff in the case Kerchner v. Obama & Congress, which is scheduled for review by a three-judge panel on June 29, 2010. Commander Kerchner has given The Post & Email his first public individual interview, and we are very pleased to present it in its entirety here.
A resident of the State of Pennsylvania, Commander Kerchner served 33 years in the U.S. Naval Reserves as both a Commissioned Officer and an Enlisted person. He enlisted with the U.S. Naval Reserve in 1962 as an E-1. He served two years of active duty as an enlisted person, after which he returned to the U.S. Naval Reserves serving with various drilling select reserve units.
As a drilling member of the U.S. Naval Reserves, he was advanced at various times until reaching the rank of Chief Petty Officer (E-7) in 1970. In 1976 he was commissioned as a U.S. Naval Reserve Officer and was appointed as an Ensign (O-1), serving as a Commissioned Officer for 19 years. He was promoted to the rank of a full Commander (O-5) in 1992.
He served annually on active duty for training and drilled with various reserve units until he retired in 1995. During his career, he served on numerous types of ships such as aircraft carriers, destroyers, repair ships, salvage ships, and patrol craft. In addition to his military service, Commander Kerchner holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and a B.A. in Economics from Lafayette College.
Commander Kerchner took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and feels it is his duty to support and defend the United States Constitution pursuant to that oath. Commander Kerchner and the other plaintiffs on his case maintain in the Twelve Counts in their lawsuit that the putative president, Barack Hussein Obama, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution and that no one in the election process, including the U.S. Congress which had a duty to investigate the charges against Obama’s eligibility (as they did for similar charges against McCain) has fully investigated Obama’s hidden and sealed original records as to his early life and have not vetted Obama’s Article II eligibility to constitutional standards.
MRS. RONDEAU: The Post & Email is very pleased that you have agreed to give us your first exclusive personal interview since the filing of Kerchner v. Obama & Congress, in which you are the lead plaintiff. I know your time is limited and we greatly value this opportunity to speak with you.
When did you first begin to question Obama’s eligibility?
CDR. KERCHNER: I had been watching the presidential election closely because I am always interested in current events and politics. I was wondering who this guy was and started to read about him from about January 2008 on. However, I really became interested in the eligibility issue around July 2008. In June, the birth location issue started appearing with the Certification of Live Birth that was put on-line, the one that is alleged to be a total forgery. I believe it is, but the other side, of course, refutes that. It’s certainly not a birth certificate; there is no hospital or doctor there.
Attorney Philip Berg filed his lawsuit in August 2008 and I read that, and I also read The Obama Nation by Dr. Jerome Corsi in early August. That’s when I really became concerned and became active on the blogs. I had been active on Wiki sites where they were trying to totally control the information that was in there about Obama’s background. You couldn’t post anything there for more than ten seconds and the other side would immediately overwhelm you and take it out.
MRS. RONDEAU: Did you actually see that happen?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes; anybody can edit a Wiki entry. But it was obvious then, in August 2008, and to this day, that it is dominated by left-leaning Obot political types out in force to protect Obama. So in August I was well aware that there was a question about where he was born. Then in September and October, I learned that Vattel’s definition of “natural born Citizen” in his legal treatise, “The Law of Nations” was a person “born in the country of two citizen parents.” I had always assumed that, but when I saw it written down in a legal book used by the founders of our nation, and I learned that Obama’s father was never a citizen, never even an immigrant to this country, I said, “Whoa, this is not right!” This man is not eligible.
MRS. RONDEAU: What action did you take at that point?
CDR. KERCHNER: In September and October, I became active in places other than Wiki. I was blogging on Gretawire at Fox News, trying to get the message out that this had to be looked at. All I was trying to do was to get someone to do a real investigation, look at the issues and decide who’s right on this: is he eligible or not? By that time, I had learned that McCain’s eligibility had been investigated in April because he was born in Panama. He had said he was born in the Canal Zone, but it turned out he really wasn’t. I wanted a similar congressional investigation of Obama’s eligibility, but no one would listen.
Eventually, it got close to the election and he won. Then I really got concerned because it was no longer moot. Here the man had won the election and was moving toward confirmation by the Electoral College, and I thought if nobody investigated this, we were going to have an illegal president. So at that point I went into high gear and registered some domain names and put up some websites. I started blogging and writing letters to my representatives and senators as well as various key senators and representatives all over the country. Not a single one answered any of my letters. They didn’t even send me back a form letter, I guess because my letters were well-documented with the facts of what a “natural born Citizen” is, including quotes from Vattel and John Jay’s letter asking George Washington to put the clause in the Constitution and explaining the difference between a “born Citizen,” a regular “Citizen,” and a “natural born Citizen.” I had it all in there. My letters also showed how the news media hadn’t vetted him, how the DNC hadn’t vetted him; nobody had vetted him, and I asked them to vet him, and they didn’t even answer my letters.
So when I started seeing the various other lawsuits failing, because the courts said, “Well, he’s a candidate, you can’t sue a candidate;” or “He’s won the election, but the Electoral College is going to deal with it,” but they didn’t deal with it…just one hurdle after another was falling by the wayside, and Congress was doing nothing, refusing to listen to the people asking them to investigate. I finally said, “We have to sue Congress,” because when the other suits failed, at least one judge said that it was up to Congress to decide. The 20th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says the President shall be qualified, and the only qualifications in the Constitution are contained in Article II, one of them being a “natural born Citizen,” but Congress failed to qualify him. They didn’t even look, even though thousands and thousands of people were writing letters asking them to.
MRS. RONDEAU: Why do you think members of Congress ignored the many letters they received from citizens like you who were concerned?
CDR. KERCHNER: I’ve written an essay on that called “The Perfect Storm for a Constitutional Crisis.” The Congress was controlled by the Democrat leadership. I believe that when they gave McCain a pass on his citizenship issues, the RNC and Republicans in the Congress made a deal with the Democrats. The DNC and the Democrats gave McCain a pass and passed a resolution saying that he was a natural born Citizen. That gave him cover and let him run unfettered by that issue, provided that the RNC and McCain didn’t bring up anything about Obama. I think a Faustian pact was made with the devil. The Republicans probably believed that they were going to win the election, but when Obama won, they asked themselves, “What have we done?” and the CYA mode started kicking in. Unfortunately, the more people who shouted and wrote about it, the more they hunkered down and said, “We’ve got to keep a lid on this.”
I believe the President and Cheney and everyone were in on this; they knew it. I think at some point, they called in the major media and said, “We don’t want to have rioting in the streets and charges of racism thrown around by bringing this up now, so you guys can’t talk about this.” So this was presented as a national security situation if he were investigated then. And I think they just hunkered down and hoped it would go away.
MRS. RONDEAU: So do you think President Bush knew about it?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes. I had written a letter to him, too. I believe he was well aware that there was a qualification issue with Obama and chose to look the other way. I think that the powers that be in the White House said, “We’re going to bring in the key national media people and tell them not to discuss it.” I remember Rush Limbaugh mentioning once on his show that he had had a secret meeting in Washington. There was also a story on the internet by an investigative group that says that they have an affidavit signed by a major media talk-radio show host who signed an affidavit, for use later, stating that he was in such a meeting. It appears that they were intimidated by the government, which was then led by Bush, and told that they could not talk about it. It was a potentially explosive situation for the cities if he were to have been investigated and found to be ineligible. So they backed themselves in a corner. They still should have thought of the country and the Constitution first, but they didn’t.
MRS. RONDEAU: I remember reading the story in Canada Free Press, which stated that there might have been more than one well-known media personality who claimed he was intimidated about the eligibility issue.
CDR. KERCHNER: How can you shut down all the media in this country? The only way is both political parties have their connections in the powerful media, and they both put the word out: “Don’t touch this.” You see? So you have the RNC and DNC leadership saying, “Shut down; don’t talk about it; it will go away.” Well, it’s not going to go away. Obama is a con-man, a grifter, a liar, and a usurper in the Oval Office.
MRS. RONDEAU: Many people say that he isn’t American; that he’s a foreigner.
CDR. KERCHNER: He doesn’t have any American culture. He’s a citizen of the world. If you read his book, Dreams From My Father, just the title of the book tells you where his thinking is.
MRS. RONDEAU: Have you read the book?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes, I have. I have a library shelf here about two feet wide and two levels high full of books on the Constitution and on Obama. I’ve been buying more books recently about him and his shenanigans in Chicago. The more I studied the man, the less I knew. He’s an enigma. His whole life has been fabricated out of whole cloth.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think anything he has said about his past is true…his parents, his time in Indonesia, attending high school in Hawaii?
CDR. KERCHNER: I believe his parents are who he says they are, but I don’t believe his birth date is necessarily true. I think he was likely born in Kenya; the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he was born in Kenya and his birth registered in Hawaii by his grandmother who could have illegally and fraudulently used a mail-in form to register “at home” births. I think his birth date is probably in July in Kenya, which would have allowed more time for the mother to come back to Seattle directly where she started college, or perhaps, via Canada. I don’t believe she actually returned to Hawaii. I think she was sent to Kenya as a pregnant teenager, as in those days, they used to go away and have the child and put the child up for adoption and re-start their life. I think she was sent to Kenya perhaps late in her second trimester to have the child and leave the child there in the custody of the paternal family to be raised there.
MRS. RONDEAU: That is something I have not heard. What causes you to believe that?
CDR. KERCHNER: It explains the statements of the paternal grandmother in Kenya that she was there when the child was born. Also, other Obama Sr. family members say they were there at the hospital when Obama II was born in the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
MRS. RONDEAU: So you think that her original plan was to leave the baby there?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes, and come back to college and start a new life. This is the scenario which fits the most facts. Now what could have happened, in my opinion, is that she returned from Canada (I think she went to Kenya and back via Canada because it was a British commonwealth country at the time; it was easy to get to Kenya from Canada and vice versa, because she would have been traveling as the wife of a British subject), and coming back, she just had to take the birth certificate from the Mombasa Hospital to the embassy over there in Kenya and say, “My baby was born here and I want to come home with my baby,” and they would have stamped it as a child of an American citizen, and she returned to Canada and crossed the border into the United States. Then she could have told her mother, “Mom, I couldn’t leave the baby there,” and Grandma says, “What are we going to do? We have to get this baby U.S. citizenship.”
So she could have then filed the mail-in form using the date that she found out about the baby’s return to the U.S. as the date of birth. She could have filed it in the Hawaii Health Department with a mail-in form. However, it appears they didn’t in the end finally accept it. Did you notice that on the form, it says “Filed” but not “Accepted”?
MRS. RONDEAU: Yes, I did. So would that have meant that it was incomplete? Could the Health Department have received it and not known what to do with it?
CDR. KERCHNER: They could have received it in the mail or the grandmother could have dropped it off at their office, but when the processors several days later looked at it, they said, “Well, we need more evidence here than just the signature of one relative.” Maybe Grandma Dunham forged the daughter’s signature, too, because I don’t think Stanley Ann was in Hawaii then. There is no record of her being there at that time. During the period of time when he was allegedly born there, there is no record of any hospital or doctor having any records on the baby or Stanley Ann being there. Tim Adams, the new fellow who just came forward, confirms that. So she could have “filed” it, and they probably sent a request back to Grandma Dunham as the “filer” a couple of weeks later saying that they needed to have a midwife’s statement or the name of a paramedic who was called to the scene, or a neighbor who might have witnessed that there was a lot of noise and commotion there “at home” during the birthing process, because a 17- or 18-year-old-girl giving birth the first time is not an easy event. It would seem if somebody had known that something was going on, they would have called paramedics or someone, or driven her to the hospital. To just say that he was born at home with no witnesses is not plausible.
MRS. RONDEAU: It makes one wonder, where was the mother? Why wouldn’t the mother have gone in to the Health Department and applied for a birth certificate?
CDR. KERCHNER: I believe the reason she didn’t herself is that she was not in Hawaii in August 1961. I believe Grandma Dunham falsely and illegally filed the registration form declaring Obama was born at home with no independent witnesses. She may have likely also forged her daughter’s signature on the birth registration form. Grandma Dunham did this for the purpose of illegally getting her new grandson U.S. Citizenship. Birth registration fraud was easy given Hawaii’s lax laws in 1961. And, the simple filing of the birth registration triggered those birth announcements, because the Health Department Statistics Office gave that list out every week. So the simple filing of the birth registration, fraudulent or otherwise, got the name on the list for publication in the newspapers.
MRS. RONDEAU: Even if the filing was not complete?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes, even if it was never accepted in the end, it was already published in the paper within days of the birth if any filings were listed there. They didn’t investigate immediately. There was a process it had to go through. But the simple filing of the registration of birth triggered the state to place the child’s name of the list of births registered with the state that week.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have any idea as to why Stanley Ann might have decided to keep the baby if originally she had planned to leave him in Kenya?
CDR. KERCHNER: I believe maternal instincts kicked in. Did you read the statements of the woman who befriended her in Seattle? Apparently she didn’t even know how to diaper the baby properly and things like that. She needed training. So I think she came directly back from Kenya via Canada or from Kenya directly to Seattle with a baby who was three or four weeks old at that point since I believe Obama’s real birth date was not in August, but likely earlier, possibly July, and she was just learning how to take care of him.
MRS. RONDEAU: There might have been no one to show her, because it doesn’t appear that she was living with her parents at the time.
CDR. KERCHNER: Well, I think when she decided to go home to the U.S. with the baby, the family over in Kenya was upset with her probably saying, “Oh, no, no; this is what we agreed to! You’ve been living here now for three or four months, and you were supposed to give up the baby!” While she was in Kenya with the new born the family there probably helped out with the initial care of the baby.
MRS. RONDEAU: I have read some accounts which say that there was no evidence that Stanley Ann was in Hawaii even months before Obama’s birth.
CDR. KERCHNER: That’s right. So when you ask if there’s anything that I believe about Obama, there’s not much that I believe in the way of factual things, including his birth date.
MRS. RONDEAU: We know that Dr. Corsi was in Kenya before the election doing some research. Does anyone know if anyone has ever located any records on Obama, birth or otherwise, in Kenya?
CDR. KERCHNER: I’ve heard the reports about people’s attempts. There was the telephone interview of the paternal step-grandmother, and there was someone over there who actually went to the hospital and the hospital administrators supposedly told them there was a birth record there, but the Kenyan Security Police reportedly went in and took all the files. Now these are all statements I’ve read; I don’t know if any of them are true. But supposedly they brought the files back months later, and the implication was that they were sanitized. The administrator, I believe, told the reporter, whom I think was a minister, that it was a state secret now that Obama was born there. But supposedly he said that there was a birth record for Obama’s birth in Kenya.
MRS. RONDEAU: If there’s a birth record that means that he was born there. Otherwise, why would they have any paperwork on him at all?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes there are many statements from Kenya that Obama II was born there. There are at least four Kenyan politicians who have stated that he was born there and that he’s not a native American. One statement was made on March 25, 2010 said directly that Obama the American President was born in Kenya. Then on April 14, another said Obama should “repatriate” himself to Kenya.
MRS. RONDEAU: It would seem that there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence, at least, that the Kenyans claim him as their own.
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes, and many Kenyan and other overseas newspapers from Ghana, Indonesia and other countries in Africa were publishing that he was Kenyan-born when he became a senator in the United States. They were proud that he was born there, and apparently still are. My attorney, Mario Apuzzo, has compiled a lengthy Catalog of Evidence which details all the evidence indicating that Obama was not born in Hawaii and was instead born in Kenya.
MRS. RONDEAU: How did you meet Attorney Apuzzo?
CDR. KERCHNER: Late in December 2008 and early January 2009, I was looking for an attorney to file a case to sue Congress in addition to Obama. I thought that was the key: to sue the Congress for their unconstitutional activities, and in case the Congress didn’t object to Obama’s election and investigate (and of course, they didn’t), I wanted an attorney be ready to sue in the period of time after the joint session would have unconstitutionally confirmed him but before he was sworn in.
I had contacted several national constitutional attorneys whose names you would recognize but for the moment I won’t mention. I had also contacted several political action-type foundations such as The Heritage Foundation, American Conservative Union, and Judicial Watch and didn’t get any responses. I had contacted all the other well known attorneys who had or were filing suits, and they were either too busy with their own suits or for whatever reasons, didn’t want to take my suit. I contacted local attorneys. A key point though was that I was looking for a pro bono attorney because I wanted a patriot to take this case, not a person just doing it for the money. I was willing to pay for all the court costs and out of pocket expenses for the proposed lawsuit.
I had gone down my list and I was just about at the end of my rope in finding an attorney when somebody said, “Did you see that Attorney Apuzzo is blogging on Orly Taitz‘s site? Did you ever try to contact him?” and I said, “No, I did see a couple of his comments, but I never saw any way that I could contact him.” So the person offered to get me his address and phone number. I then called Atty. Apuzzo that same day and told him what I wanted to do, that I was looking for a patriot to do it pro bono and file the suit before Obama was sworn in. This occurred on the afternoon or evening of Friday, January 16, and the inauguration was scheduled for noon, Tuesday, January 20th, 2009. So it was a very short period of time left, and he said he’d have to think about it and discuss it with his wife because it was a very controversial and dangerous thing to bring a suit like this given all the threats that were being thrown around on the internet and elsewhere toward the people who were standing up to ask these questions about Obama. So he wanted 24 hours to think about it.
The next day I called him back, and he decided to take the case. I faxed to him copies of all my letters to Congress and the Executive branch and others as evidence of who I had contacted and from whom I had not received any answer or response (not even a standardized form letter or acknowledgment of my correspondence to them) about investigating the constitutional eligibility of Obama. We worked together for the next three days via telephone and email on putting it together, and we filed it at 2:50 a.m. on Inauguration Day, January 20th, 2009. I wanted the case filed before Obama was sworn in so that I was suing the president-elect, who was still a civilian and not yet been vested with the office, powers and protection of the presidency. So my suit was filed against the president-elect, who had been confirmed by Congress, and the Congress itself, and several other named defendants who were complicit in the unconstitutional and illegal acts in confirming Obama. The political process was over at the point in time I sued. The rest is history. That’s how I reached Attorney Apuzzo.
And I am very glad that I found Attorney Apuzzo. He has a brilliant legal mind and extensive legal experience in citizenship issues. He’s done a terrific job in handling my case given the many legal obstacles set before us.
MRS. RONDEAU: That’s wonderful that that person put you in touch with him.
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes, it was. Again, the reason I sued is that Congress did not listen to the people; I didn’t get a single answer to several dozen letters. My own U.S. representative, Charlie Dent, and my U.S. Senator, Arlen Specter, who was on the Judiciary Committee, didn’t even acknowledge my letters. And all the other people to whom I wrote, including the leadership or ranking members of various committees, etc., the President, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and dozens of others, also ignored me. Prior to this point, when other lawsuits were coming in to the U.S. Supreme Court, I even wrote to the Supreme Court justices asking them to take one of those cases. I didn’t expect to receive an answer from them, but I did expect to get at least some sort of answer from elected officials. I didn’t get an answer from anyone in the Executive Branch or Congress. It was as if a cone of silence had been slammed down in Washington, DC.
MRS. RONDEAU: Had you spoken with anyone who had written similar letters and gotten the same reaction?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes. If your letter sounded as if you knew what you were talking about, you didn’t get an answer. If they thought they could buffalo you, then you got a vague answer that said “Oh, if he was born in the USA, he’s eligible,” or “I believe the online Certification of Live Birth is genuine and proves he was born in Hawaii.” Can you imagine that online image being evidence of anything: a digital image on the internet or a laptop computer? He never showed that piece of paper used to make the image or vice versa to any controlling legal authority. That piece of paper has never been in the hands of anybody of any authority or expertise to determine its validity, and the Hawaiian authorities have never, ever confirmed that that image on the internet is of a real Certification of Live Birth issued by them. We’re dealing with birth registration and document fraud here; we’re dealing with social security number fraud; we’re dealing with Selective Service registration fraud. There are so many things this man has done to create his life that isn’t real.
MRS. RONDEAU: Why do you think the DNC chose this man with all of his eligibility hurdles and questions about his background?
CDR. KERCHNER: I believe it was because they could control him, because they knew these things about him and they knew they had, in effect, ultimate power over him via blackmail because of document fraud issues. Plus, he had access to huge amounts of money from foreign countries, which is illegal, but which was important to the political types. Access to lots and lots of money, no matter where it came from. I believe it was brought in by diplomatic pouches on thousands of pre-paid debit cards with $1,000 on them that are untraceable. So I believe they handed them out to all the ACORN volunteers at ACORN offices all over the country and they typed in “Mickey Mouse” and names out of the phone book for $50, and when that card was used up, they gave them another one. I think the money came from the Middle East and was funneled through diplomatic pouches, possibly through Venezuela, because Bill Ayers has extensive contacts in the Venezuelan government and is on the educational advisory board there.
MRS. RONDEAU: I didn’t know that.
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes, he has received awards and medals from Venezuela.
MRS. RONDEAU: Perhaps that explains why Obama seems to admire Hugo Chavez.
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes, and that could also explain why Obama turned a deaf ear to the Honduran people when they threw off a dictator. Under their constitution, the Supreme Court and legislative branch said, “No, you’re not going to do this; that’s dictatorial power,” and they threw him out. However, Obama sided with Castro, Chavez and Ortega against the people and the constitution of Honduras. So what does that tell you about Obama’s goals?
Back in the United States, there’s a bill in the Congress that has been quietly introduced by a progressive Democrat in Congress to repeal the 22nd amendment which limits the president to two terms. If they can get away with it, they will try to make Obama president for life.
MRS. RONDEAU: And he may not even have been eligible to step into the Oval Office.
CDR. KERCHNER: I know a lot more now than I knew back in August or November 2008. But from what I know now, he wasn’t even eligible to be a U.S. Senator. He is actually an illegal, undocumented alien in the Oval Office, because his mother could not pass citizenship to him when he was born in Kenya; she was too young under the relevant U.S. laws at the time. If you were born to a father who was a foreign national in a foreign country, the mother would have had to have been five years past the age of 14, which would have been 19, and she was only 18 when Obama was born.
And, when Obama married Michelle, he could have obtained U.S. citizenship from her, but he didn’t file the necessary paperwork.
MRS. RONDEAU: He didn’t?
CDR. KERCHNER: No.
MRS. RONDEAU: I have read stories that he might have married Michelle to obtain U.S. citizenship.
CDR. KERCHNER: It isn’t automatic; you have to file papers to be recognized as a U.S. citizen via marriage, because a lot of these marriages are a sham. So you have to prove that you legally married and stayed together for a certain amount of time, and then you’re recognized as a U.S. citizen; you get a Certificate of Citizenship. He never filed for that because he’s been operating as if he always was a citizen.
MRS. RONDEAU: Have you seen any evidence that he never filed the paperwork?
CDR. KERCHNER: No, I don’t have concrete evidence of that, but if it existed he would of course not show it because he would be only a naturalized Citizen of the United States by marriage. He definitely would not be eligible to be the president, but he would have been eligible to be a senator. If he filed for citizenship by marrying his wife that conclusively proves that he wasn’t even a “born Citizen,” and therefore, he has committed fraud in running for the presidency. So if he did file the papers, it’s sealed with everything else and it is never going to come out until everything else sealed is revealed.
MRS. RONDEAU: It’s strange that he has sealed even his state senatorial voting record. Why would someone do that if he has been in public life and served in that capacity?
CDR. KERCHNER: Because facts are difficult things, and he lives his life with a narrative. When a fact comes out, he changes the narrative to accommodate it. Did you ever notice that the Obots do that on a blog, too? When a troubling fact shows up, they have to recreate the narrative to accommodate it. That’s what Obama has done.
MRS. RONDEAU: We have been talking about what a “natural born Citizen” is. It seems that they have now started using the term “native born,” and Obama used the term himself on his Fight the Smears website. We’re not talking about “native born.”
CDR. KERCHNER: “Native born” in today’s English means born in the territory: if you are a native of New York, you were born in New York. It does not address who your parents were. Vattel stated that “the natives,” or “natural born,” are people born in the country of parents who are citizens. So they used “natives” and “natural born” interchangeably. The terms used in the founding time period per Vattel took into consideration where you were born and who your parents were. But today, 260 years later, the term “native born” to us means simply where you were born.
Obama has used the obfuscation and manipulation of words very cleverly; it’s like conversational hypnosis the way he uses the language. He uses “native born” and makes it sound like “natural born,” and he uses “Certification of Live Birth” which sounds like “Certificate of Live Birth.” He’s very clever. But you know what? A lot of criminals are smart and they use their intellect for corrupt and criminal reasons instead of for good and just reasons. They, the Obama cronies, use their brains to figure out ways to subvert the Constitution.
MRS. RONDEAU: Did you happen to see an essay published in the Chicago-Kent Law Review by Sarah Herlihy about which I wrote an article several months? In her paper, she posited that the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution should be abolished.
CDR. KERCHNER: This is part of the progressive movement. They want to say that the Constitution is no longer applicable or valid to a modern society. I don’t buy that, because the Constitution was written by very wise men who knew the nature of man and politics. They put the checks and balances in there to limit the power of the federal government, and that’s why the progressives want to throw it out. They don’t want it to mean anything anymore. They want to push the country towards a pure democracy so that 51% determine what the rules are at the moment, and that leads to mob rule.
If you read the Federalist Papers, the founders studied all the governments of the world from ancient times up until then and asked, “Why did they fail?” and they explained it all. They knew that all pure democracies fail because the people can then vote whatever they want from the government, and the government eventually goes broke and fails. So they looked at it all, and they read Vattel, and if you read the first volume of Vattel, he talks about a new form of government: a constitutional republic where the people are sovereign, where you have an independent judiciary, where the purpose of government is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the government should always try to perfect itself. The Preamble to the Constitution says “in Order to form a more perfect Union” – that’s Vattel! Government should always strive to perfect itself to serve the people better. The laws of nature: that’s Vattel. He codified natural law. So they decided that a constitutional republic was necessary to maintain checks and balances for the new federal government which was formed to unite the 13 sovereign and independent states into a new nation. The only way you could unite the 13 sovereign, independent states was to appeal to universal laws, natural laws, laws that are innately obvious to all people. So if you’re a natural born Citizen, born of any state in that new union of parents who are citizens of one of those states, you’re a natural born Citizen of the new nation, and there’s nobody in the world who can claim you.
MRS. RONDEAU: Nor would you owe or have any sense of allegiance to a foreign country.
CDR. KERCHNER: That’s right. What if President Kennedy had had a Russian father, and the Russian father had been living in Moscow? Would he have hesitated, if a nuclear strike was coming, to press the button to respond? That’s the conflict. Look at what Obama is doing in Kenya now. He meddled there as a U.S. Senator and he’s meddling there now in regard to their constitution.
MRS. RONDEAU: And allegedly has spent millions of taxpayer dollars doing it. He is attempting to push the Kenyans to adopt the new constitution which contains things they’ve never advocated.
CDR. KERCHNER: That’s right. He is still dreaming of his father’s country and his country. You can also think of a natural born Citizen this way: a second-generation American. That gives you distance and time from the old country. You have no affinity for the old country other than that’s your heritage. You are lock, stock and solidly immersed in the American culture because you were raised by people who were citizens, either by birth themselves or by renouncing allegiance to their former country upon affirmation of citizenship of the United States. And they were proud to be Americans and raised their child to be an American. As a second-generation American, you’re not going to be providing government funding to Kenya to help change the constitution or campaigning for your cousin to win the election over there. I can’t think of one president in my lifetime who has ever been so deeply and personally involved with a foreign country and its internal politics.
I think part of the problem with Obama, too, is that he practices Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals tactics and the Cloward-Piven strategy, which is a deliberate strategy to bring down the American system. I think that’s part of him: that he takes the sides of all our enemies and disses our allies, because he’s trying to cause crises and upset our government, society, and all of our institutions such that a massive crisis happens in the end. That’s what the Cloward-Piven strategy strives to do. Then, the only solution is to take over with National Socialism, triggered by a Reichstag-type event.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that’s where he’s trying to go?
CDR. KERCHNER: Not in actually burning down a building, but in a sense of creating a financial and political crisis in this country so that the only solution is a massive government takeover at the top – that could happen. I can see a narcissistic, power-hungry man like Obama going that way.
MRS. RONDEAU: Oral argument was just canceled for June 29. Do you have any comment on that?
CDR. KERCHNER: It was disappointment, obviously, and I look at it this way: we’ve lost a skirmish in the battle, but we haven’t lost the battle, and we haven’t lost the war. And, in effect, whatever decision comes out of this, the ultimate goal is to get to the Supreme Court as fast as possible. They’re the only ones who are going to decide this. So win or lose at this stage, we’re going to continue to seek justice. Either we’re going to get a trial, or we’re on our way to the Supreme Court. I’m still very optimistic that when we get to the Supreme Court, they are going to take my case, because it’s what they call “ripe,” standing-wise. It was filed when Obama was the president-elect and the political process was over, but before he was sworn in. I sued Congress and Obama, and I’m asking them to define what a natural born Citizen is to constitutional standards as used in Article II and stop allowing Congress to duck the issue. They need to define what it is, once and for all as to eligibility for the office of the President and Commander of our Military, and then give that to Congress. Then jointly, just as they did in Honduras, the Congress and Supreme Court, acting in concert, should decide if he’s constitutionally eligible, and if he’s not, remove him. If the courts don’t remove him, then Congress will.
MRS. RONDEAU: Even on January 8, 2009, when Congress counted the electoral votes, they had the ability then to ask Obama to produce documentation.
CDR. KERCHNER: That’s right. Not only did they have the ability and authority; they were required to do it. Also, the way the joint session was conducted, they were required to call the individual votes from each and every state for objections, not just tally them all up and call for objections at the end and rush it through. They were supposed to give each state the opportunity to object to any of the other states’ votes, and they didn’t do that. So the session was conducted illegally under U.S. statutory code, U.S. Code Title 3, Section 15 and constitutionally, they never attempted to qualify him when they had thousands and thousands of letters from American citizens. WorldNetDaily alone had sent them 350,000 petition letters by that time. Even though they should have had a hearing before the joint session, all they had to do was adjourn the joint session and say, “We need to qualify this man. Show us a real birth certificate with a doctor and a hospital on it, and start answering some questions about your life, your records from Occidental College, how and when and where you registered for the Selective Service System; did you register as an Indonesian citizen at Occidental College to gain financial aid as a foreign citizen student?” These questions should have been asked and answered. But both parties were in shutdown mode then, cover-up mode. They were both dirty; they had made a pact with the devil, a Faustian pact back in April 2008 to cover up the eligibility issues with both parties’ presidential candidates.
Do you know who started the “Birther” movement? Jonathan Turley. He wrote the first story asking if John McCain was eligible, and The New York Times printed a similar article the same day. The Democratic machine started the whole “Birther” movement. It was fine for Democrats to question McCain’s eligibility, but when Republicans questioned Obama, it was off-limits.
MRS. RONDEAU: Polls show that there are a lot of Democrats and unaffiliated voters who are questioning whether or not Obama is eligible, at least now.
CDR. KERCHNER: The very first “Birthers” were the Democrats who questioned McCain. The second level of “Birthers” was Hillary Clinton’s operatives who were digging into Obama’s past because they were still hoping to knock him out of the running if they could find a smoking gun as to his eligibility in time. As I understand it, Attorney Philip Berg became interested in pursuing Obama’s eligibility after being contacted by Hillary Clinton supporters. However, after Hillary gave up her campaign and decided not to have a floor fight at the DNC convention and agreed to take the job of Secretary of State, they couldn’t get Attorney Berg to stop pursuing Obama’s eligibility, especially after Attorney Berg learned that Obama’s step-grandmother in Kenya was stating that Obama II was born there, and that she was at the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, when Obama, her step-grandson, was born there. The now unified Obama and Hillary campaign supporters were unable to stop Attorney Berg. He kept going because he believes that Obama was not eligible and Attorney Berg is supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution. He also had the encouragement of the PUMA Democrats who objected to Hillary caving in to Obama. And thank God for the country that Attorney Berg did continue with his lawsuit against Obama.
MRS. RONDEAU: Phil Berg was the first attorney to file a case, wasn’t he?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes, against Obama. There was a lawsuit against McCain in April 2008, the Hollander case. So again, the whole “Birther” thing in challenging eligibility was an operation that came out of the Democrat Party, first to knock off McCain or silence him, which they did, and secondly, they got Hillary’s camp to go after Obama. However, she chose to back off and take Secretary of State.
MRS. RONDEAU: And the Senate passed Senate Resolution 511.
CDR. KERCHNER: I believe that a backroom deal was made among the DNC, Obama, and the leaders such as Patrick Leahy, who said to McCain, in effect, “We’ll make it all go away with this resolution. If you agree you’re not going to mention Obama’s middle name, his citizenship, or any of these issues, we won’t say anything about your eligibility question.” And that’s what McCain did; you couldn’t even mention Obama’s middle name during the campaign. McCain would blow up.
MRS. RONDEAU: I remember that.
CDR. KERCHNER: I wrote a letter to Senator McCain about this very issue, and I basically said, if you don’t speak up, you’re no longer going to be considered a hero and patriot and defender of the Constitution to me and challenged him to stand up to his oath of office. He never answered me.
MRS. RONDEAU: Has it been difficult to get the word out to the public about Obama’s questionable eligibility?
CDR. KERCHNER: I have had an advertising campaign going on since mid-May 2009. Almost every week, there has been an ad in The Washington Times National Weekly edition with full-page ads. I also have a website designed to educate and publicize why Obama is not eligible for the presidency. Also, my attorney has a legal blog in which he’s been writing many legal essays and articles about the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” as it meant to the founders of our nation and framers of the U.S. Constitution.
MRS. RONDEAU: Are the ads different every week, and do you design them yourself?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes, I design them with the help of a graphic designer, which makes them look better. I sketch it out with either pencil and paper or cut-and-paste. They are run in series. I run an ad three or four times and then I design a new ad. The first series was educational about the lawsuit itself. Then the ads educated about what a “natural born Citizen” is. I also published Mario’s essays and articles about Vattel’s definition of natural born Citizen and natural law. Then I published an ad with a flag representing citizenship on the child and the parents to visually show how Obama wasn’t a “natural born Citizen,” or possibly not even a Citizen, if he was fraudulently registered as being born in Hawaii after the fact after being born in Kenya or elsewhere outside the USA. I put out some educational information on the court system and prior Supreme Court cases: Chief Justice Marshall saying in 1821 that if the courts refused to take a case on a constitutional question, it amounts to treason against the Constitution. So it’s an educational process, but to keep the message out there. For the year 2009, my case was just about the only new type of case going in the courts for a while. Without my new case being filed when I did and actively pursued since then, the legal efforts in the federal courts could have died off as the other cases failed one by one.
MRS. RONDEAU: I haven’t heard much about other cases lately.
CDR. KERCHNER: Well, there is Lt. Col. Lakin, who is a hero to me, too. He is a tremendous patriot standing up for the Constitution and risking his entire active duty military career.
MRS. RONDEAU: That brings up another question. Why do you think more active military members are not doing what Lt. Col. Lakin is doing?
CDR. KERCHNER: Because they risk their career. As you can see already, Lt. Col. Lakin is not being given a fair shake; you see what’s happening with him. They changed his evaluation. He had an outstanding evaluation just a couple of months ago, and they just did one at the end of May which trashed him. He had been up for promotion to full Colonel, and he’s no longer going to be promoted.
The military is supposed to be devoid of politics, in a sense. It’s very, very difficult for an active-duty military person to stand up alone and buck the powers that be in Washington when they are corrupt. It’s very dangerous and very difficult for a person in the military to do that, because you have a set of rules governing you, the UCMJ, which don’t govern the rest of the citizenry. You’ve given up some of your freedom, so to speak. The thing is, though, the military does take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I never thought about that word domestic in the oath much until Obama came along.
I believe in God, I believe in my country, I believe in my family, and I will fight to the death for all three of those. I took my oath, and I believe those words, and I meant those words, “so help me God.” I feared for the loss of my liberty and my inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution for which our forefathers fought during the American Revolution. These were codified into the fundamental law of the nation when they wrote that contract for the protection of the sovereign and free people in the several states, the U.S. Constitution. This contract limited the power of the new federal government and protected our rights and liberty, my rights and liberties. I feared loss of liberty if this usurper were allowed to take office and continue to remain in office for any length of time. I did not trust Obama to protect me. If he and his progressive sycophants in Congress can ignore and usurp one part of the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, then he will ignore and usurp other parts, such as the Bill of Rights. That’s why when I saw the other suits failing, I felt as if I was almost being called and told, “You have to stand up, Commander Kerchner. You must live up to your oath to support and defend the Constitution. You have to stand up and fight this battle. You must do this.”
I took an oath to the Constitution of this country. We’re a nation of immigrants, and believe me, Obama’s father wasn’t one. But we’re a nation of immigrants, and the glue and sinew that holds this country together is that Constitution. Without it, we never would have made it this far, and we won’t make it much further if it falls apart. That’s the natural and universal law that unites us all. Our inalienable rights granted by God, nature’s law created by God – that’s what holds us together, and if we lose it, the country is doomed.
I had a lot of anxiety before I filed the case, but as soon as I filed it, a certain peace came to me, and I haven’t lost a moment’s sleep since then. It’s as if I answered the call and now I’m being protected. I will continue to fight this battle until the truth and Constitution are upheld and the usurper in the Oval Office is removed, so help me God.