by Sharon Rondeau

(Sep. 2, 2015) — On Tuesday evening, CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret.) and Atty. Mario Apuzzo were guests on “The Wake-Up Mission Show” regularly hosted by former California gubernatorial candidate Chelene Nightingale and Randy Dees.

On the morning of January 20, 2009, Apuzzo filed a lawsuit, Kerchner, et al v. Obama & Congress, et al, challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the presidency and Congress with having failed to vet Obama.

Apuzzo has been practicing law for 32 years, often focusing on citizenship matters, criminal law, personal injury and municipal law.

Kerchner was ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but rejected, never having the chance to be heard on the merits.

Kerchner holds two bachelor’s degrees in engineering and economics, respectively.  As a sworn, retired 33-year member of the U.S. Naval Reserve, 19 of which were spent as a commissioned officer, Kerchner has given the last seven years to educating his fellow Americans about the meaning of the presidential eligibility requirement contained in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, “natural born Citizen,” and his firm belief that Barack Hussein Obama is a usurper to the office.

Along with numerous appearances on radio shows and extensive blogging, Kerchner has assembled a sizable compendium of documents related to the “natural born Citizen” clause as they have become available.

Early this year, Kerchner participated in a national effort to mail informational DVDs to every sheriff in the United States, which totals approximately 3,100.  The “Sheriff’s Kits” contain evidence released by a criminal investigative team in 2012 that Obama’s posted long-form birth certificate and purported Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries.”

Dees hosted the entire show, which introduced Kerchner and Apuzzo at the 1:04 mark.  The topic of discussion was whether or not Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is eligible to seek the presidency under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that the president and commander-in-chief must be a “natural born Citizen.”

Kerchner opened the discussion by stating that several 2016 Republican presidential candidates are ineligible because of their parentage and citizenship status at birth, namely, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio, and Cruz.  He added that individuals invited to debate Cruz’s citizenship had not “shown up,” a fact repeated by Dees about 30 minutes later.

Apuzzo joined the conversation by stating that during the late 18th century, according to “The Law of Nations” written by Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, a wife took on the citizenship of her husband, which resulted in their children having allegiance to one country.  “Everything was united,” Apuzzo explained.  “It was unheard-of to have dual citizenship.”

Two years ago, Cruz was stated to have been born a dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada by The Dallas Morning News, which released what it said was a copy of Cruz’s birth certificate obtained from Cruz, who had not yet declared his presidential candidacy.

At the time, Cruz and his spokeswoman claimed to be unaware that Cruz possessed Canadian citizenship.  In May of last year, he formally renounced it, affirming that he had possessed it while running for and serving in the U.S. Senate representing Texas.

In 2007, after Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency, the media did not question whether or not his claimed dual citizenship was problematic.

“We know for a fact that Ted Cruz was born a dual citizen,” Kerchner said, likening Cruz’s birth situation to that of Obama, who had stated on his 2008 FighttheSmears website that he was born a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. by virtue of his father’s British, then Kenyan, citizenship.

Apuzzo said that early in United States history, a birth within the country “was not enough” to make a child a U.S. citizen. Children of foreigners born on U.S. soil were considered citizens of their parents’ country, which agrees with Vattel’s statement that “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Apuzzo went on to explain that although there is much confusion over the 14th Amendment, its purpose was to make former slaves and their children U.S. citizens.  “Once that first generation became citizens, then they could have children born here, and they could become natural born Citizens,” Apuzzo said.  “The 14th Amendment doesn’t say ‘natural born Citizen;’ it says ‘citizen,'” he added.

Kerchner raised the issue of the meaning of the term “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment, which Apuzzo said has proven problematic in modern times.  He said it did not change the “natural born Citizen” provision of the Constitution.

Apuzzo cited the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).  In the latter, the court said that there “was no doubt” that a person born in the country to two citizen parents was a “natural born Citizen.”  Ark was decided in favor of the U.S. citizenship of a man born in San Francisco to two legal-resident parents who remained Chinese citizens, later returning to China.

Apuzzo said that “common law” dictated the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”  He said that historically, the British government gave citizenship to anyone born within its confines in order to “claim” the service of that person “for life.”  “They needed people to man the warships,” Kerchner amplified.

Speaking of The Enlightenment, Kerchner said that the new Republic did not base its Constitution and laws on British common law but was rather closer to French ideals of the time.  Apuzzo said that “The Framers studied the philosophers of the Enlightenment.  A tremendous source was John Locke…The whole concept of Locke is ‘consent of the governed.'”  The children of citizens then become participants in the society through a “republican” form of government, Apuzzo said.

“The Founders and Framers were fluent in French,” Kerchner wrote in an essay in May 2010.

Kerchner noted that Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees that form of government to the states.

A letter dated July 25, 1787 from John Jay to George Washington, the latter of whom presided over the Constitutional Convention, said, “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Kerchner stated that the clause was included to preclude anyone with divided allegiance to ascend to the presidency.  “Obama is exactly what the Founders and Framers did not want to get command of our military,” he concluded.

Apuzzo added that in June 1787, during the Convention, the Founders agreed that “republics” are more likely than other forms of government to be influenced by “foreign governments.”  Both guests invoked the Clintons’ alleged acceptance of foreign political donations and both major political parties having attempted to amend the “natural born Citizen” clause multiple times as supporting Apuzzo’s historical claim.

“In 2008, both parties decided to run questionable natural born Citizens,” Kerchner said, referring to Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was born to U.S.-citizen parents in the Panama Canal Zone.  “They want to run anybody…next thing they’ll want to run anchor babies for president,” Kerchner said just before the 1:29 mark.

Apuzzo said that Cruz supporters claim that Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the Virgin Islands, had intended to offer a presidential eligibility proposal at the Constitutional Convention but did not have the opportunity.   However, Apuzzo believes that discussion of it may have ensued, and Kerchner has noted a presidential eligibility proposal attributed to Hamilton.   “There’s so much that happened in that convention that we don’t know about,” he said.

The guests then discussed the respective Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.  Apuzzo said that the 1795 law corrected and repealed the 1790 Act.

He believes that Cruz is “a citizen of the United States” by virtue of a 1952 law passed by Congress, but not a “natural born Citizen.”  “The feel-good media” has contributed to confusion over the constitutional requirements for president, he said.

Kerchner said that Cruz is, at best, a “naturalized citizen.”  Posing the possibility that Cruz’s U.S.-citizen mother adopted Canadian citizenship before her son was born in Calgary in 1970, both guests agreed that Cruz would then not be a U.S. citizen at all.

The Post & Email has attempted to obtain a copy of Cruz’s birth certificate, financial aid applications, and any naturalization records that might exist, but has been denied.  The only record released thus far by the U.S. government is Cruz’s Selective Service registration, which reportedly occurred through his application for a federal Pell grant.

Addressing the “Obots,” Kerchner said that “we’ve lost” all of the legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility in the legal arena since 2008 because the courts “don’t want to deal with this.”

Approximately 40 minutes into the interview, Apuzzo stated that “the constitution created our government.”  He said remnants of English common law still exist within the state governments, although he said it was never adopted by the Constitutional Convention.

Constitutional scholar Joseph DeMaio agrees.

Apuzzo said he terms the current White House occupant “de facto president Obama” after explaining the difference between “de facto” and “de jure.”

Kerchner stated that Apuzzo is fluent in several languages and has read “The Law of Nations” in its original French.  Of the Obots, Apuzzo said they attempt to proffer inaccurate translations of the text, such as “extended family” in place of “parents.”

Apuzzo then addressed the terms “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis,” of which he said the United States invokes “both” in issues of citizenship.  “Jus soli” addresses birth within a country, and “jus sanguinis” deals with parentage.

Apuzzo said that a person’s allegiance “becomes questionable” in those whose parents owed allegiance to a different country.  “That’s the problem with having a commander-in-chief…” with divided allegiance, Apuzzo noted, referring to Obama.  “A great percentage of the people have a suspicion” about Obama’s proposed “deal” with Iran, Apuzzo said.

“We cannot trust this man,” Kerchner added, calling Obama “a citizen of the world.”

Apuzzo added that the media has proffered only “jokes” about Obama’s birthplace and not the peril in which questionable allegiance on the part of the president places the American people.

Returning to Ark, Apuzzo and Kerchner explained that the Supreme Court did not touch on the issue of who could be president within Article II in its decision.  “The court analyzed international law as of the 14th Amendment,” Apuzzo said.

Apuzzo’s writings can be found here, dating back to 2009.  At approximately the same time, Kerchner launched his Protect Our Liberty website.  Later, he began a personal blog at which he posts items of constitutional import.

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. I have put a LOT of thought into what it means to be a natural born Citizen and come to understand why the founders did not define the term. In their day, such ideas were a common currency of political thought among those seeking to form a new country and the meaning of natural born Citizen seemed to them an obvious, self-evident fact of natural law. We have drifted far away from the circles of thought that occupied and were shared among the minds of the founders, ideas which were based on common sense in order to establish and perpetuate a system of self-governance of a nation of free and equal sovereigns.

    Today, our collective understanding has been dulled by inattention to the ideas that brought us here. The forces of chaos and tyranny have seized upon our uncertainty with media propaganda and with activist judges wielding such weapons as “standing” and “precedence” (stare decisis) or simply making things up (when, if they were being true to the Constitution, they should just be looking at original intent). But they duck and weave using legal technicalities and absurd rationalizations instead of common sense.

    A lot of patriots defer to Vattel’s Law of Nations to justify their understanding of the founders’ meaning of natural born Citizen, which is certainly true and correct, but this approach is prone to attack as an argument from authority and can be (wrongly) countered with opposing figures of authority, who are often little more than partisan hacks. I have been seeking out self-standing, common sense arguments that cannot be assailed on logical grounds (leaving only the Alinsky tactics of simple contradiction and/or ridicule).

    Another tact is to look to the SCOTUS for enlightenment from prior decisions such as in Minor versus Happersett. However this approach is subject to the same weakness as deferring to Vattel — it’s an argument from authority (and a rather dubious and unreliable one at that). I would rather apply the common sense of the founders.

    One common sense argument is to examine what it means to be natural born in the animal world. A natural born wild horse is born in the wild (jus soli) of two wild horses (jus sanguinis). If one of the progenitors is a zebra or a jackass, the offspring is an unnatural hybrid (not a horse). If the horse is born (and raised) on a farm, it is unnaturally domesticated (not wild). This analogy carries over quite well to natural born citizenship, which, for the same reasons, requires jus soli AND jus sanguinis.

    Next, consider comparing our country to a family of citizens. A natural born family member is a natural child of its parents born (and raised) in the family among its siblings. A “naturalized” family member is the child of outsiders (non-citizens) adopted into the family perhaps at birth or beyond. A dual citizen is an unnatural hybrid like a sperm-donor child. And a child adopted out of the family and away from his or her siblings is like the child of an American citizen born and raised in a foreign culture. Such a child becomes a “denaturalized” outsider to the family.

    Another argument is to compare what it means to become a naturalized citizen and apply that understanding to unlock the meaning of natural born Citizen. An adult alien who becomes a naturalized citizen must renounce all other citizenships and allegiances and become 100 percent exclusively American. How can anyone think that a natural born Citizen could be anything less than this, but with the added qualifiers of being a 100 percent American naturally (without any law) and be so from birth on?

    Yet another argument is to examine how combining presidential eligibility qualifiers might best align with the founders’ expressed intent of providing a strong check against foreign intrigue. The three commonly cited qualifiers to being a natural born Citizen are 1) born of a citizen father, 2) born of a citizen mother and 3) born in-country. Combining the three qualifiers with a logical AND function provides a strong check. Combining them with a logical OR function (which is favored by the “living” constitutionalists) barely provides a check at all. Now which do you think the founders had in mind?

  2. I too have read the Law of Nations in the original French. Obama once called himself a “Citizen of the World”. SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas told Congressman Serrano, during the course of a formal Congressional hearing that they “are evading the issue”. That statement resulted in raucous laughter erupting. What is funny about admitted misprision of treason? The original phrase.in French, defining an NBC, is “Les Naturelles,ou indigenes,sont ceux qui sont nes de le pays,de parents citoyens. The Natural Born are those born in the country OF PARENTS (Plural) CITIZENS (Plural). It does not say de un Parent Citoyen or of a Parent Citizen (singular).That a person’s citizenship follows from the Father does not detract from the fact that the Mother must also be of the same country.

  3. K.I.S.S. – keep it simple, stupid. The simple answer is usually the best answer. The definition of “Natural born” is simple. Those who don’t like the simple definition are not worth wasting my time on. The vast majority of the folks bringing the news to America fall into that category, and unfortunately our public educators also. Is there any hope left when these brain-muddled run the show?

  4. These two gentlemen are true patriots! I am grateful for the education they provided me on the Constitution and American History. I am a self made man, an example of the real American Dream. Starting with less than nothing, today I am a successful physician. Our country gave me the opportunity and I have only gratitude for it, and our patriots like Apuzzo and Kerchner. May I suggest that Trump be invited on WOBC Blog Radio or a similar venue to discuss the eligibility issues. He knows Obama has presented forged documents, and he has ” the bully pulpit”. It’s time his feet are put to the fire to admit what he knows publically, or prove himself to be just another coward and phony looking to his own self interests, and not the interests of our country. Call it a litmus test. If he wants my vote, he’ll have to pass it! Lou.