Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)

(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?


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.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. @ Nikita

    While you may be correct about citizens born abroad to one or two US citizen parents however, persons born on US are natural born citizens and not “statutory citizens” regardless of parentage. The opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case said that the 14th Amendment codified what had been accepted in common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The Dred Scott decision made the 14th Amendment necessary.

    I can cite at least a dozen court rulings to back up what I just wrote:

    Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
    Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
    Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.“
    Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
    Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
    Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
    Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
    Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
    Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
    Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
    Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:

    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

    Thus, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage.
    In Re: Nomination Petition Of Rafael Edward Cruz (Pennsylvania, 2016) ruling: “this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a “natural born citizen” includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.“

    Several of the plaintiffs in these cases tried citing the work of de Vattel and Minor v Happoersett. The judges were not swayed.

  2. Founding Framers that would have disputed the guidance of Emerich deVattel’s book the Law of Nations, especially the Section 212 that defined a natural born Citizen as a person born in the country to citizen parent(S), would have been labeled as Founding Forgers.

  3. If a person is a US citizen via a Constitutionally-authorized Congressional citizenship/naturalization law, that person is a STATUTORY US citizen. Hello Cruz and McCain and anyone born in the USA to less than two US citizen parents. These individuals were given US citizenship through an existing law (statute).

    Congress has no authority to make ANYONE a natural born Citizen. That’s why you will never find the phrase “natural born Citizen” in any laws or documents, save two places: 1.) 1790 Naturalization Act (repealed) and 2.) US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

  4. @Sharon Rondeau

    That is an interesting find but probably not conclusive as the status of US citizens at birth born abroad. There seems to be a disagreement among serious constitutional scholars as the eligibility of those like Ted Cruz who are citizens by circumstances of one or two parents being citizens and born in another country. I note the same article makes no mention of a person being born on US needing citizen parents. That agrees with the hundreds of sources listed on the blog I cited.

    I recall that a number of unsuccessful challenges were filed against then candidate Ted Cruz in 2016. I think one or two of the judges dismissing those cases seemed to be leaning towards the idea that Cruz would be a natural born citizen. The cases were dismissed on other grounds as I recall however.

    I tend to go to the experts on these matters. One of the best treatises on the subject was a paper published by professor Charles Gordon, an adjunct professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, published in 1968. I believe his paper was written because of questions about the eligibility of Sen. Mitt Romney’s father George Romney who was a candidate for the Republican nomination that year. One can download the paper from the Maryland Law Review website:


  5. In no way, shape or form would the Founders, learned visionaries one and all, in attempting to restrict the Office of the Presidency and Commander In Chief to those with sole allegiance to and faith in the United States, leave said office available to someone born in America to one/more foreign parents.

    If the latter were the case then a female and male could come here from different countries…Iran and North Korea for example…have a one-night stand which results in her becoming pregnant…he goes back to whence he came but she stays here to have the baby …she goes back to whence she came taking the baby with her…the baby comes here at age 21, resides here for 14 years, and is eligible to serve as President/CIC. No way were the Founders not learned and visionary enough to foresee that scenario, and intend “natural born Citizen” to mean born in the country to citizen parents of the county.

  6. @ Nitika

    That’s an interesting theory. You think all the Civic’s and history books that mention an alternate definition of natural born citizen have quietly been destroyed? Personally I never heard of de Vattel before a few people in 2008-09 like Leo Donofrio brought up his work. I had certainly never heard of the Minor v Happersett decision.

    Someone did an extensive search on Google Scholar back in 2010 for books that define natural born citizen. They found over 300 hits and not a single one of them mention two citizen parents, de Vattel, or Minor v Happersett.


    My recollection of what I learned in my Civics and American History classes (granted that was a long time ago), was that anyone born in the US could grow up to become president one day. I always found something truly American in that concept. It would be great if folks could look in their garages and attics for their old textbooks and report back on what they say about presidential eligibility.

  7. Those seeking hard-copy textbooks from the past are possibly doomed to failure, because most of these textbooks possibly have suffered the same fate as the European Jews did during the NAZI terrorism reign.

    Here is the textbook that the Founding Fathers/Framers used to form a nation, free from the tyranny by the world-wide monarchy and country-grabber, Great Britain and King George III.


    As previously penned by a knowledgeable commenter/contributor to The Post & Email:

    Robert Laity
    Monday, July 1, 2019 at 4:53 AM
    “Joe, On the “goofy” argument that no English translation of Vattel’s French translation, the fact is that in 1787 the official language of Diplomacy WAS French. The founders were familiar with the French Language. It was Benjamin Franklin who brought the book back with him from France. Ben was Ambassador TO France. It is a book that George Washington borrowed from the Library and never returned (Don’t worry, the family recently gave the library another copy of the book from that era valued at $300,000). The founders were very educated men. They understood and read French. “Les Naturels. ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont, nes dans le pays de parents citoyens”. The Natural Born are those born in a country to parents who are citizens.”

    “It does not say “de UN Parent Citoyen” or of one parent citizen. It says “Parents Citoyens” PLURAL. Since we all have only (two) Parents, THAT is the only conclusion that can be reached by use of the phrase “de parentS citoyenS”.”

    Reference: https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/06/30/recent-u-s-supreme-court-decision-quotes-vattels-the-law-of-nations/

    Further, it is this commenter’s opinion that Emerich deVattel’s book “The Law of Nations” is all you need to read as the originating reference. All sorts of fields of study tend to ‘water-down’ original meanings, depending upon writers’ bias(s) and political agenda(s). Stick with the original.

  8. SandyT

    You could do us all a great favor by listing the title and publisher of your Civics book that had that definition of natural born citizen. I have done quite a bit of research on this and have never found a Civics or American History textbook that said that.

  9. I’m 76 years old and a lifelong conservative Republican. I had Civics in the 1958-59 school year, as a sophomore in high school and American History in my junior year. We were taught that a natural born citizen was one born on U.S. soil to a citizen FATHER and a citizen mother. (Emerrich de Vattels’s “Law of Nations”) I also went to college for a couple of years before getting married, and that definition of natural born citizen was confirmed in college government classes. That was BEFORE Obama was born. I knew the first time he mentioned that his father was a Kenyan going to school here, that BHO was not a natural born citizen, even if he had been born in the White House! He was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.
    The Republican Party has shamelessly allowed ineligible people to run for the presidency also, since O has “gotten away with it”. In 2016, Ted Cruz was allowed to run, even though he had been born in Canada and his Cuban father didn’t become a U.S. citizen until 2005. Only his mother was a citizen. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal also ran for the R nomination in 2016. Both were born in the U.S., Marco in Miami and Bobby in Baton Rouge, but their respective parents were all foreign nationals, not citizens. Thankfully, they didn’t win the nomination. They are all good people, but NOT “natural born citizens”. Now, it is 2020 and there are three ineligible people running for the Democrat nomination, Kamala Harris (born in the U.S. to parents who were both foreign nationals, not citizens), Tulsi Gabbard, whose parents were both U.S. citizens, but she was born in American Samoa, which is an unorganized, unincorporated U.S. territory that does not grant U.S. citizenship to children born there. The last, I’m not that sure of the rules regarding U.S. embassy employees in other countries. Michael Bennet is running for the D nomination but was born in New Delhi, India. His citizen father was an aide to the Ambassador to India at the time. I don’t know if Michael was born at the embassy or in a hospital in New Delhi. The thing is, ALL candidates for the office of president or vice president should be, MUST be, fully vetted for constitutional eligibility, regardless of party or “how good they might be”. The Constitution is more important than any political party or candidate.
    I’m a widow on Social Security and don’t have the money to file lawsuits, but I do post on every website or forum that mentions natural born citizen and have done that ever since O showed up in the public eye. If we don’t abide by the Constitution, we will lose the protections the Founders put into the Constitution, to keep those like Obama out of the Oval Office.

  10. The Constitution tests the president’s loyalty to the government which it created in two ways: the oath requirement and the natural born citizen requirement.

    While the Constitution requires an oath of every federal office holder, it prescribes an oath only for the President. That oath is NOT to this country, but rather to the government which the Constitution established in this country. In other words, the President could not simply be loyal to this country under any government (such as the first government under the Articles of Confederation) but the President must be loyal to the government which was established by the Constitution – the government which created the Office of the Presidency.

    A natural born citizen is not simply a person born in the United States to parents who are its citizens, such as Zachary Taylor. Rather, a natural born citizen is a person who is born with sole allegiance to and protection of the government established by the Constitution, without particular regard to parentage or location of birth. Perhaps a natural born citizen must be born in the US, but not all US-born people are natural born citizens (see Zachary Taylor). Perhaps a natural born citizen must be born to two US citizen parents, but not all people born to two US citizen parents are natural born citizens (see John McCain).

    The Constitution exempted many US-born people from having to satisfy the natural born citizen requirement because they were Citizens of the Untied States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The Constitution did not exempt these US-born people by accident. The Constitution exempted these US-born people for a deliberate cause: they were not natural born citizens because they were born in the US under the government established by the Articles of Confederation (or born in the US under no government at all.) The Constitution was a revolution – a coup d’etat – against the government of the Articles of Confederation. Neither a person born under the government established by the Articles nor a person born under the government established by the British Sovereign is a natural born citizen.

    Barack Hussein Obama II was born a US citizen in Honolulu. But he was also born a British subject in Honolulu. For this reason, like Zachary Taylor, he is NOT a natural born citizen of the Untied States.

    The Constitution alone tells us so.

  11. I am getting annoyed about the “Filed” “Accepted” thing. Hawaii is a chain of islands. Each Island is its own county. The counties can “Accept” Birth certificates, and a note of such “Acceptance” is made in the record. THEN the record goes to Honolulu to the STATE DOH office, where it is “FILED” and given a permanent record number.

    “Accepted” means the record is in state’s hands, it has been accepted by the state.
    “Filed” means it has been permanently FILED by the state and given a permanent Record number.

    I KNOW, I was born for real in Hawaii, and I have asked for specific clarification on the matter.

    PEOPLE, GET IT RIGHT. “Filed” and Accepted had relevance as separate events!!! Back in 1960 it took TIME to get records from island to island. It was MERELY Hawaii’s way of “accepting” a record to get it sent to Honolulu from an outlying island. It meant that the state had the record, but it wasn’t officially filed until it could reach Honolulu.

    It is irrelevant where OholyO was born. From the instant he was conceived, he was ineligible. He was born BRITISH. He was born with two citizenships, and could NEVER have been a Natural Born Citizen because of that ALONE.

    Natural Born Citizen = parentS who were citizens (no for O) and born on our soil (So far not proven to be born here).

    PRISON is where that usurper should be.

    He should be in Jail and tried for treason. ASAP.

  12. Every nbc defender should challenge the elective process that brought here by registering/ giving notice to your local and state election board that you are a write-in candidate for some local or state (or even federal) office this election cycle and want your write-in vote(s) counted. Federal Helping Americans Vote Act HAVA has rigged the system with secret foreign owned electronic election voting technologies. The courts have a big problem dismissing plaintiffs for lack of standing when the plaintiffs are voters and especially candidates for public office and even more especially those public offices requiring an oath of office.

  13. Cmdr. Kerchner, Maj.Gen. Valleley, Captain Pamela Barnett though retired are certainly fighting for America. God bless Lt.Col. Lakin for his fight in active duty. I have to wonder if McChrystal’s comments in Rolling Stone are a caveat of what the whole military is feeling in supporting their Constitution with their oaths. Interesting note, their oath is so poignant in the matter at hand with Obama’s Qualification being directly penned in the United States Constitution. It truly is affixed to duty.
    Great Interview and article Ms. Rondeau!
    Cody Robert Judy
    U.S. Senate 2010 UT

  14. An exceptionally clear questioning and answering of the birth issue and cover up. People can now easily grasp the fundamental reasoning by reading it in plain English. Justice will be done despite the fraud and treachery throughout this nation’s political sphere. The media is just as guilty for what they have done in conspiring with the government. The only danger there is grows each day that this usurpation lives.

  15. You’re awesome, Cmdr. Kerchner! Great interview, Mrs. Rondeau! Keep the pressure on Mr. Apuzzo! You are absolutely right, Cmdr. Kerchner, nothing adds up right with this Grifter, Barry Soetoro. Everything about him leads to a rabbit hole of vagueness & questions. I believe he was selected for this job, packaged & smartly marketed like a magical elixir to dupe the American sheeple. I’m with you, Cmdr.Kerchner – take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Let’s hope & pray that the Supreme Court Justices’ palms haven’t been greased, or their lives threatened by the greedy puppeteers, Obot thugs and dispicable traitors of Barry’s fan club. My fear is that somewhere along the way, this case & so many others will be ignored, stalled and crushed before it gets anywhere. It’s already been too long that Barry Muslim Grifter “who da baby daddy” Soetoro has been in the White House. Faxing, writing letters are falling on the weak cowards & traitors who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, they have no spine or stomach for doing the right thing. The global one worlder pupeteers are powerful, clever and rich – let’s hope it’s not too late to save the USA. Go, go, go Cmdr. Kerchner, press on & God speed to you & to all those who support you. Thank you P & E for the great job you have been doing on this issue and so many other IMPORTANT issues plaguing our precious country now.

  16. Yes, a bunch of people were writing to senators, congressmen, etc., and this is what Citizen Wells’ “Hall of Shame” is about. http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/us-constitution-hall-of-shame/

    You know what I received back from my senator in TX, from John Cornyn, a stupid form letter that was worthless. A lot of people received the same thing. I know others who wrote to Cornyn received the same form letter as I did. Isn’t that something?

  17. Thank you, Mrs Rondeau. Many, I’m sure, who have followed Cmdr Kerchner from almost the beginning have not heard the whole story. Is there not some way to expose your interview to a larger forum? Post & Email is turning into a high quality news venue, dare I say far more credible than WND or NewsMax. Until you arrived, the journalistic quality was well-meaning but crude (it takes a good manager to find the right talent!).

    The few media pundits who have mentioned eligibility have been poorly informed, though presumably well- meaning. Michael Savage has not feared to tread, but doesn’t have command of the history or the facts. Might he be willing to interview Cmdr Kerchner and/or Mario Apuzzo? This needs exposure beyond the fringe, not that the fringe are incorrect. Your interview of the Commander shows him to be the thoughtful patriot with the command experience and confidence to act. He has asked the questions most others have asked, and arrived at sensible conclusions. But no one else, to my knowledge, had the foresight to write letters to Congress.

    I also had never heard that he was rebuffed by The Heritage Foundation as well as Larry Klayman’s Judicial Watch. It is human to want to protect your family and income, but these foundations’ incomes depend upon representing citizens concerned with violations of Constitutional restraints on our government – statism, as Levin has put it. The questions Cmdr Kerchner was asking seem addressed to their bread and butter issues. That they feared to address them, or perhaps recognize their relevance, raises questions about their value. They might redeem themselves by offering Cmdr Kerchner a forum, perhaps in response to your interview?

    I would recommend that a copy of your interview be addressed to Justice Thomas, who, besides Nathan Deal, former Georgia Congressman, had the courage to acknowledge that there is a problem with our Supreme Court. The ridicule phase seems to be losing its effect. Perhaps your cogent interview with a cogent Naval Officer has come at the right time?

    I am a capitalist and hope you can turn your journal into a full time living. Meanwhile, your interview has inspired my first donation to Post & Email, and another, not the first, to Cmdr Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thank you, Mike, for your thoughtful observations. Yes, we did release the interview when we thought the timing was strategic, although it was ultimately Cmdr. Kerchner and his attorney’s call. I was sent a link yesterday to USA Today (the online version only, as far as I know), which linked to the interview by way of Smart Girl Politics. SGP was respectful of our copyright policy and posted a portion of the interview with a link back to the story at The Post & Email, which we greatly appreciated. And yes, we do want to make this a full-time business which is first and foremost, a truth-teller and top-rated investigative news agency, and secondly, profitable. I am doing this full-time and hope to grow the audience as you suggested. In order to do that, we do need more exposure. Readers of The Post & Email, with our permission, may post two paragraphs of any of our articles, with a link to The Post & Email at the top and a link back to the story following the two paragraphs. Those who wish to post entire articles can buy a blogger’s license from us for only $10.00/year. Other patriots have done the same and post our work on their blogs. One person did it for the specific purpose of posting our articles on Scribd to disseminate the news to a wider audience. I am also working on ways to expose our work and have found an excellent site at which to do that which gives full credit in accordance with our copyright policy.

    I appreciate your inquiry and ideas, and any of our readers are welcome to contribute to The Post & Email’s growth, from which we will all benefit. We also want to attract more advertisers to fill up those empty spots! If anyone has ideas on how to do that, please contact me at editor@thepostemail.com. We thank all of you for your support, both financial and patriotic.

  18. Outstanding interview by both! So many of us did the same thing as far as writing letters, e-mails, signing petitions, calling our congressional leaders, appealing to judges at all levels, sitting as jurors, delivering presentments, ad nauseum. No doubt others have felt the same sense of incredulity and shock that our elected officials ALL ignored us, and we’re the ones who put them in office! It still is shocking, because it is so prevalent throughout all of the 535 members of Congress. Whatever respect and trust Americans had in our elected leaders in Congress, the WH, and the judiciary has been destroyed by those who swore to support and defend our Constitution, our very way of life. How can we ever trust our “government” again? We have to ask the question, “Will even those we think we can trust because they are taking conservative stands be true to conservative and Constitutional principles? Once burned, twice shy. No more will we blindly trust; we will be watching to verify.

    Until and unless we rout out the vermin in the cesspool that is Washington, D.C, and in our local and federal courts, we will never again have peace and trust in this nation’s leaders. When all is said and done, what is at the root of the corruption, deception, and evil that is in power for now is a profound and deadly defect of moral character in all the key players. They are ungodly men and women who champion killing the unborn, lying and deceiving the American public with impunity, stealing hard-earned money from taxpayers, creating and capitalizing on economic and other crises plaguing this nation, disrespecting the foundation for the Supreme Law of this Land, and devouring the hands that feed it. Our present government has morphed into a huge monster which is gorging on its citizens, clawing and tearing this country apart, and sucking the lifeblood right out of it. We are most certainly “on the eve of destruction, my friend”.

    If there is ONE judge out there who is willing to lay down his career to do the right, honorable, and just thing, then the Kerchner case is for you, sir or madam. It is time for justice to be served now! We demand discovery of the truth and will take whatever consequences come from it. Truth can be tolerated because it is immutable and it will carry the day. But a foundation of lies will soon crumble. It can’t happen quickly enough!

  19. Sharon, thank you for doing this interview. As usual, your well researched questions were great, and the answers by Commander Kerchner were full of insight and information that many of us were simply not aware of.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I hope it was enlightening and provides us all with the strength to continue to uncover the truth.

  20. Great interview! I am in an on-line group that formed prior to the 08 election. The purpose of our group was/is to educate fellow Americans about Obama’s eligibility issue and his radical agenda. We have also written to congress etc…., but like CDR. Kerchner we received no response.
    I am very thankful for patriots like CDR Kerchner and the folks here at The Post & Email – keep up the great work and never give up – the truth will prevail!
    God Bless

  21. Commander Kerchner:

    Bravo Zulu to both you and Mario Apuzzo, Esq. as well as great thanks to Sharon Rondeau for doing – and publishing – two such detailed and splendid interviews.

    I wonder why the MSM doesn’t do something like that …??? (Must be a reason and it’s probably the one you touched upon in the interview). Guess they’ll never learn!!

  22. Has anybody tried to get a hold of Obama’s mother’s Passport? That would verify whether or not his theory is correct that she traveled back and forth via Canada! Or are her documents in “lock-down” too
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, Ken Allen’s FOIA lawsuit was filed over that exact matter. The DOJ has been ordered by a judge to produce it, and the DOJ continues to stall. They have until June 30 to release Stanley Ann’s information and Lolo Soetoro’s. We’ll see if that happens.

    1. A youtube blogger from the UK on the Tim Adams video wrote that Stanley Ann is in hiding in the UK–could be nothing, or not.

    2. June 30 is one day after the day (June 29) that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals makes its decision in the Kerchner case. How convenient.

  23. 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.

    It could also explain one of her statements in this article from May 2010:

    “Mama Sarah Obama was awarded a honorary Doctor of Letters by the Great Lakes University of Kisumu on Monday for her role in helping widows and orphans at her Kogelo village. . . . Mama Sarah appealed to the public to dedicate their time and effort to ensuring that they take care of orphans and the vulnerable people in the society.

    ‘This is a show of blessing from God, since I have always dedicated my time to tend to the orphans. Even the US president passed through my hands,’ added the grandmother. ”

    When would the president have “passed through” the hands of stepgrandmother Sarah Obama?

  24. Several developments that may play into this issue.

    First, WND’s friend Tim Adams has been interviewed by ABC. It’s on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v2HhZ-L-MU

    Second, this blogger has an update to a previous post about the birth announcements. Note the attempts to hide the pertinent microfilm rolls, that someone appears to be monitoring the library and people who research this issue, and that there are interesting questions involving microfilm-able events from Nov. ’93 as well as April ’61.


  25. Mrs. Rondeau,
    Your moving interview with Cmdr. Kerchner has, in Navy parlance made a well deserved rating of “4.0”. Excellent! He is certainly a powerful figure and with his selection of Mr. Apuzzo as his “vanguard”, they should prevail with no problems in our real world as opposed to this “Kafkaesque” charade of Legal Cesspits with which we are so regrettably cursed today. My complimentts you both!!!

  26. I wish that I knew how we could find that screen shot from FR, which that post was written on Nov. 18th, 2008. And the person was saying the screen shot was taken in the spring. So I wonder if they have archives? I really don’t post much at FR, but I’m sure other people may know more about it.

  27. Charles & Mario,

    Thank you for being men of courage…


    1 Corinthians 16:13
    Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong.

  28. Mrs. Rondeau, I compliment you on your successful efforts to get so many important interviews on the Obama presidential eligibility issue with so many conscientious and active American patriots—like Commander Kerchner—who is also bravely standing up for our Constitution that guarantees all Americans freedom. This interview is one of your finest—for you ask the right questions and Commander Kerchner responds in a brilliant way that gives anyone a very good background on the Obama birth and eligibility issues. With reference to CDR Kerchner’s statement in the interview above: “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 was a little more fortunate with my efforts, albeit at a much later date.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The rest of Mr. Radka’s comment was so good that I just had to publish it as an editorial.

  29. Sharon,
    Very good interview, and reading along here, Commander Kerchner said something that I find interesting, that he thinks BO could have been born in July.

    Back in 2008, when I was following the eligibility issue, I saved a link to a discussion at Free Republic. Let me just quote it here, it’s very short and written by Gemsbok, Post 2141.

    “You may very well be write.

    However, it was from 2004 and perhaps a forgotten article and I believe someone took a screenshot of the article last Spring and it contained the birthdate of july 18th at the end of the article.

    That is why the Obama line about recalling the time of his birth at 7:24 rings like a planted seed to rhymne with the time on a later manufactured COLB.”

    Note the date of July 18th. Now it notes that someone took a screen shot of the article. Wish I knew how to find that.


    Also, I used to have another FR reference to this, but I must have gotten rid of it by mistake. It was talking about that the date of July 18th was in an African journal.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thank you; that is excellent information and it will be researched.

  30. Another great interview, Sharon! God Bless & keep Cmdr. Kerchner safe. I think this court case is the last one. I pray it’s successful. Thank you, Cmdr. Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo!