DNC Executive Committee Members Legally Warned Against Perjuring Themselves If They Certify Obama As A Natural Born Citizen

Obama Lawyer Warned Against Certifying Eligibility

By Bob Unrush

WND.com

September 3, 2012

A former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch has warned a key Barack Obama attorney that Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges.

The letter from Larry Klayman explains that’s because those officials simply cannot know Obama’s eligibility for sure, and the law doesn’t allow them to make assumptions.

In his letter to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, Klayman explained that the evidence shows no one knows for sure about Obama’s eligibility, so letters from the DNC to states about Obama’s 2012 candidacy may be problematic.

“There is therefore no longer any state or national official in the Democratic Party who can escape legal responsibility for ignoring the proof herein provided, and a plea of ignorance of the facts will no longer be possible, especially under the informed legal counsel provided by you (and your state counterparts), Mr. Bauer,” Klayman wrote.

“At the same time that you are receiving this legal analysis, each DNC Executive Committee member – as well as each state Democratic Party chair, secretary of state, and state attorney general – is receiving a certified letter advising them of the legal jeopardy in which they place themselves should they proceed – in light of the facts herein presented – to certify to state or national election officials that Barack Hussein Obama is the constitutionally and legally qualified Democratic candidate for president of the United States.”

Such verifications, if created, would be "perjurious," Klayman said.

READ MORE . . .

Obama: A Contemptuous and Felonious President

Speaking of "betting on America,"and Obama's contempt of the law . . .

Obama's Problem Obeying the Law

By William Sullivan

AmericanThinker.com

July 6, 2012

There is ample evidence that Barack Obama, and people under his supervision, committed at least one felony -- specifically, illegal gambling across state lines -- to fund his 2008 election campaign.  Congress, meanwhile, found Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, in contempt for refusal to testify about Operation Fast and Furious.  Orchestration of straw purchases of firearms, one of which resulted in the death of a law enforcement officer, could easily be another felony.

The Obama Campaign's Numbers Racket

The general definition of a lottery is an activity that includes (1) mandatory payment of consideration -- i.e., money -- as a condition of participation, (2) a prize -- i.e., anything of value, such as an expenses-paid trip, and (3) an element of chance in the selection of the prize winners.  It is against federal law to conduct a lottery across state lines, and it is illegal in almost every state to conduct an unauthorized or unlicensed lottery or other gambling activity.  This is true even in states like Nevada that are famous for their (licensed) gambling establishments.

The Obama campaign ran at least two such lotteries in 2007 and 2008 before changing them to allow entry without a contribution.  The change was the direct result of complaints from a law enforcement agency.  There is still a YouTube video of Mr. Obama himself making a pitch for one of these lotteries, and here is an e-mail from the Obama campaign with the relevant parts of the full headers.  IP address 70.42.50.185 still traces to Blue State Digital, which was indeed the service provider for the Obama campaign.  (This does not mean that Blue State Digital was involved in any way with the alleged illegal actions of the Obama campaign; it is, however, evidence that the following e-mail came from the Obama campaign and was not circulated by a malicious third party.)  We have highlighted the three elements of a lottery: payment of consideration, element of chance, and a prize of value.  We have also bolded evidence that the lottery was dishonest, and that it cheated many of those who entered.

READ MORE . . . 

Also see:

Ohio Presidential Candidate Files Suit Against Barack Obama For Using A Fraudulent SSN

That $3 dinner with Obama may cost you hundreds in taxes

Obama Perilously Close To Forfeiting All Georgia Delegates

Georgia Judge Considered 'Default' Against Obama

By Bob Unruh

WND.com

January 27, 2012

Attorneys who argued in a Georgia court this week that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president say Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi considered granting a default judgment before they even argued the case.

That presumably could have recommended that Obama failed to prove his eligibility and therefore should not be on the 2012 ballot, since he and his lawyer snubbed the hearing, for which Obama was subpoenaed.

But the attorneys argued against such an easy victory on the point of the single hearing, expressing instead their desire to get the evidence concerning Obama’s eligibility or lack of it in the record, so that it would be there should the case elevate to an appellate level.

The attorneys also said the strategy decision by Obama to simply ignore the subpoena and the hearing may ultimately backfire, because judges typically aren’t pleased to listen to arguments from someone who wants to introduce evidence during an appeal.

READ MORE . . .

[Ed.  Fox News initially posted a video report about the trial after Obama and his attorneys failed to comply with a subpoena, but as of this writing, all you will see at the link is an empty black box.  This is a blackout of the news!]

Cartoon: Eligibility Checklist

Source:  BrainReboot.com

University of Illinois Law Professor Attempts To Scrub His Earlier Definition of Natural Born Citizen. Why?

THE SCRUBBING OF AMERICA: How Professor Lawrence Solum Disgraced Himself To Protect Obama's Eligibility 

By Leo Donofrio

NaturalBornCitizen

February 24, 2011

In September of 2008, the Michigan Law Review published an article by Lawrence Solum, the John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, entitled, “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause”.  The article focused upon the issue of whether John McCain was eligible to be President despite his birth in Panama.  The article did not even mention Barack Obama.  The direct citation is Michigan Law Review: First Impressions Vol. 107:22 2008.

The opening paragraph of Solum’s article states:

“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen.’” (Emphasis added.)

[snip]

CUT TO… OCTOBER 27th 2008.

Solum published the original article in September 2008.  But then something happened.

The issue of whether a dual citizen at birth may be considered a natural born citizen had been ignored in the run up to the election – prior to October 27, 2008 – when I brought my law suit, Donofrio v. Wells, against the New Jersey Secretary of State.  Up until then, the issue of Obama’s dual citizenship was not on the radar of voters, pundits, or journalists.

By 2010, the dual citizen issue had become common knowledge.   Today, four states - Montana, Nebraska, Tennessee and Arizona – have drafted bills requiring Presidential candidates to prove they have never been dual citizens, or that both of their parents were citizens of the United States when the candidate was born.  If any of those states actually pass such a law, Obama will not be eligible for inclusion on their ballots.

SOLUM SCRUBS

On April 18, 2010, Solum republished the article under the same exact title but with a vastly different second paragraph.

READ MORE . . .

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court

By Bob Unruh

WorldNetDaily

February 17, 2011

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

READ MORE . . .

Washington Times Full-Page Advertorial Challenges Obama's Eligibility Again

New full-age advertorial appearing in today's Washington Times which challenges Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president because his father was not an American citizen.  Click image to enlarge.

Lawsuit Against Illinois State Board of Elections To Force Candidates To Prove Eligibility

Breaking--suit in Illinois to require candidates to prove eligibility

Anthony Martin

Examiner.com

January 14, 2011

Illinois is ground zero for a major developing court case that could force all political candidates in the state to show proof of their eligibility for office, including a legal birth certificate.

The suit is Meroni v. Illinois State Board of Elections (ISBE).

According to a press release today by the Patriot's Heart Radio Network, renown elections attorney Steve Boulton from the law firm McCarthy Duffy LLD will be representing the plaintiff in the case.  He is also the general counsel for the Illinois GOP, although the present case is not connected with the Republican Party of the state.

Read more . . .

Montana Rep. Bob Wagner Proposing Presidential Eligibility Legislation

Resolving Obama's eligibility now has dollars-and-sense plan
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
January 11, 2011

Montana state Rep. Bob Wagner is proposing legislation that would require candidates for president to document their constitutional eligibility in his state, but his plan would take the controversy one step beyond other state proposals.

His outline would set in state law protections for the taxpayers of Montana to prevent them from being billed for "unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of "federal election officials" to do their duty.

Read more . . .

Hawaii Election Commissioner Accused Of Circumventing the Electoral Process To Help Obama Get His Name On The Ballot

O-Con Had Legal Help From Non-Partisan Hawaiian Election Commission

By Pen Johannson

The Daily Pen

January 7, 2011

Honolulu, Hawaii - At the center of the war over Barack Obama’s illegitimacy to be president are a series of deep seated, unanswered questions about the detailed involvement of several municipal employees and officials within the government of the State of Hawaii. From former governor, Linda Lingle’s lack of transparency to former Health Department director, Chiyome Fukino’s intentional ambiguity about Obama’s vital records. From the blatant dismissive ignorance of Hawaii’s legislature to the claims by a former Honolulu senior elections office clerk that Hawaii does not possess an official, standard, original, 1961 Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Obama, the State of Hawaii has emerged as the primary co-conspirator in keeping Obama’s identity a well kept secret from the American people.

Now, however, a new investigation of Hawaii’s Election Commission and the laws employed by the state’s Office of Elections to approve candidates for inclusion on presidential ballots raises shocking revelations about the power of a few individuals to open legal channels and set an elusive course enabling Obama an opportunity usurp presidential power and assault the Constitutional sovereignty of the American people.

Read more . . .

Update: Obot SMRSTRAUSS' Links Are Being Scrubbed From Google Prior To Presidential Campaign

Obot SMRSTRAUSS' Links Are Being Scrubbed From Google
By EricaThunderpaws

Recently I visited the website of attorney Mario Apuzzo, legal council for Charles Kerchner, and noticed that SMRSTRAUSS had posted a comment to an article.  Apparently, this Obot couldn't resist plying his trade once again, but Apuzzo's readers are at least aware of who he is and resoundingly rejected his remarks.

During the presidential election, and for a very long time afterwards, SMRSTRAUSS did a lot of damage on behalf of Obama.  He, his wife, and probably a host of others using the same name, infiltrated every site that discussed Obama's eligibility issue.  This crew left a trail of disinformation everywhere they posted.  Their mission:  to ridicule all who doubted Obama's eligibility to serve as president, and to confuse the public by misstating the facts.  

If you missed the exploits of SMRSTRAUSS, read my exposé published in March 2010 for the full story, backed up with hard evidence.  On the date that article was published, a search on Google for this Obot's name registered nearly 20,000 hits, which was very impressive activity by a "single" individual!

One would assume that over time the trajectory of hits for SMRSTRAUSS would climb if he/they continued to post comments, or perhaps level off if they stopped, but exactly the opposite has happened!  The trajectory of Google hits for this name has dropped dramatically downward.  Information doesn't just disappear from the internet unless someone physically removes the links.  SMRSTRAUSS must have friends in high places!  But of course, that is the argument I made in the article. 

Evidence for the change in Google hits is displayed below.  Prior to publishing my exposé on SMRSTRAUSS' activity, I made screen captures of the Google results page on a couple of occasions.  On January 29, 2010, Google returned 17,500 links.  A short time later on February 8, 2010, Google had increased the returns to 18,900 links.  Today, there are only 4,640 links!

Perhaps SMRSTRAUSS and friends are trying to clean up the Internet before the 2012 presidential election cycle begins, because the link between SMRSTRAUSS and Obama's disinformation campaign might prove useful to Obama's opponents if their dirty tricks are exposed.

Click the images to enlarge them.

January 29, 2010

February 8, 2010

December 26, 2010

Obama's Eligibility Issue Will Never Die Until He Answers The Questions

Obama could make this issue go away in a nanosecond if he wanted to.  One has to ask, why does he allow the wounds of trust to fester?

A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii
By Mario Apuzzo

The New York Times on April 21, 2010, did a story entitled, Obama and the ‘Birthers’ in the Latest Poll, by Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan. The article reported that "[i]n a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 58 percent said Mr. Obama was born in the United States. That leaves a significant minority who said they thought he was born in another country (20 percent) or said they did not know (23 percent)." Question No. 50 in the poll was: "According to the Constitution, American Presidents must be 'natural born citizens.' Some people say Barack Obama was NOT born in the United States, but was born in another country. Do YOU think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or was he born in another country?" The result was: Born in US 58%, Another country 20%, Don't Know 23%. Hence, these numbers show that 43 percent do not believe that Obama was born in the United States. What a serious national security situation we are living in when the de facto President and Commander of our vast military power has not convincingly proven with certainty to almost half the people of this nation that he was truly born in the United States. The New York Times article, as usual from this pro-Obama paper, is written in such a way as to give the reader the impression that Obama has convincingly proven that he was born in Hawaii and that those who do not believe that Obama was born there are misinformed and poorly educated. What the authors of the article fail to realize or refuse to report is that concerned Americans have very good reasons to doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Read more . . .

Related articles:
Obama's paltry paper trail raises serious questions
Obama tries to wipe slate clean for 2012 run

Diana West: 'This week's guilty verdict settles nothing'

Army surgeon's challenge to Obama remains despite guilty plea

By Diana West

WashingtonExaminer.com

December 18, 2010

Here's the rub, as I understand it: The military justice system isn't empowered to consider whether a president, duly elected, certified and inaugurated, is anything other than what the civilian leadership says he is.

What this means is that Lakin's beau geste may originate within the military order but it falls into the category of civil disobedience, breaking the law to uphold higher principle.

It is a higher principle no one else is upholding. Indeed, Lakin's disobedience highlights the existence of a vacuum of "true faith and allegiance" in the land -- a gross abdication of civilian responsibility to ensure the lawful transfer of presidential powers took place long before Lakin received orders to return to Afghanistan.

Indeed, through peaceful disobedience, Lakin has directed our attention to the moral corruption of our most trusted public servants who, rather than expose themselves to political inconvenience, permitted the secrecy of President Obama to fester in the first place.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin didn't rush onto a battleground this week; he walked into a military courtroom. He didn't fire a weapon; he pleaded guilty to disobeying orders related to deployment, and not guilty to the more serious charge of "missing movement." But Lakin put his life, in the sense of his distinguished 17-year career as an Army surgeon, his income, his pension, and his personal freedom, on the line because of his sworn duty to the U.S. Constitution.

Read more . . .

Terry Lakin Action Fund To Assist His Young Family

As a result of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin's eligibility challenge to Barack Obama, Lakin was court martialed on December 14th.  Lakin will be in prison for six months, and he will lose all pay, benefits, and retirement funds.  He has a wife and three young children who will suffer as a consequence of his actions.

If you have a desire and the means to donate to a fund established to support the family, you may do so at the Terry Lakin Action Fund website. 

Supreme Court To Consider Another Eligibility Case in Conference on Jan. 7th

Supremes facing eligibility challenge to Obama, again
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily.com
December 18, 2010

It just doesn't appear to be going away.

The idea that Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, and do chores such as appointing Supreme Court justices, needs to be explored and documented is headed back to the highest court in the land.

According to the Supreme Court's own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.

This particular case has had a long proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president has been documented to date.  While that officer, Capt. Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined $20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.
Read more . . .

Also see:
Kerchner v. Obama:  Supremes punt on Obama eligibility again

Obama's Eligibility: Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin's Court Martial To Begin On Tuesday

FYI, Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney is a Fox News contributor.

McInerny [pictured left]:  Congress will review Lakin case
3-star general:  Physician 'is not going to get a fair trial'
By Brian Fitzpatrick
World Net Daily
December 10, 2010

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney predicts the incoming Republican-controlled House of Representatives will launch an investigation if Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is convicted in next week's court martial.

Lakin is on trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan.  He challenged the orders because he questions President Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.  His court martial is scheduled to begin Dec. 14.
Read more . . .

In Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin's own words:



[Note: Lt. Col. Lakin does not attempt to address the definition of the term natural born Citizen.]

Supreme Court: Judgement Day for the Kerchner v. Obama Petition for Writ of Certiorari

U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
By Brian Fitzpatrick
WorldNetDaily
November 23, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."

If the Supreme Court decides to grand the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
Read more . . .

Watch the SCOTUSblog For Commentary On Kerchner Writ of Certiorari

You may want to bookmark the "Supreme Court of the United States Blog" so that you can follow up on comments that will be made if the Court agrees to hear the Kerchner et al vs. Obama et al. Writ of Certiorari, which challenges Barack Obama's eligibility to be President.

On the SCOTUSBlog "About Us" page, the authors state the following:

SCOTUSblog is devoted to comprehensively covering the U.S. Supreme Court—without bias and according to the highest journalistic and legal ethical standards.  The blog is provided as a public service and is sponsored by Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP.

Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe – husband and wife – founded the blog in 2002. Reporter Lyle Denniston joined a few years later.  Other permanent and part-time staff members have joined over time.  Significant contributions have come from lawyers and summer associates at Tom and Amy’s law firms, as well as their students at Stanford and Harvard Law Schools.  Now more than twenty people work on or write for the blog.

The blog generally reports on every merits case before the Court at least three times: prior to argument; after argument; and after the decision.  In certain cases, we invite the advocates to record summaries of their arguments for podcasts.  The blog notes all of the non-pauper cert. petitions that seek to raise a legal question which in Tom’s view may interest the Justices; Lyle gives additional coverage to particularly significant petitions.  For the merits cases and the petitions we cover, we provide access to all the briefs.

Many of the blog’s posts go beyond coverage of individual cases.  Each business day, we provide a "Round-up" of what has been written about the Court.  We regularly publish broader analytical pieces.  Lyle also comprehensively covers litigation relating to detainees in the "war on terrorism"—a topic of recurring interest at the Court.  The blog carries significant analysis of nominees to the Court.  In addition, various special projects—such as our thirty days of tributes to Justice Stevens—may span several weeks.  Significant books related to the Court are the subject of our "Ask the author" series.  A calendar lists significant dates for activity at the Court and programs relating to it.  We also regularly publish statistics relating to the Term.

Update:  Just to keep any comments made in perspective, most of the attorneys who work for Akin Gump also donate heavily to the Democrat party.

 

Tracking petitions on SCOTUSblog 4.0
By Kiran Bhat
November 17, 2010

The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions for certiorari each year, but it chooses to hear only a tiny fraction of them. At SCOTUSblog, we search the docket daily for the petitions the Court is most likely to grant. The end results of this process on SCOTUSblog 4.0 are petition case pages, the “Petition of the day” feature, and the “Petitions We’re Watching” section of the website.

The process

We first narrow SCOTUSblog’s docket by screening out petitions that are unlikely to receive consideration. We exclude petitions filed pro se or in forma pauperis, as the Court rarely hears cases in which the petitioner represents him- or herself or cases in which court-imposed fees are waived for the petitioner. We exclude petitions for writs of mandamus and petitions for rehearings as well.

We then review the questions presented by each remaining petition for a few characteristics that dramatically increase the likelihood that the Court will grant certiorari. Cases with the potential to resolve disagreements between federal appellate courts are often of special interest to the Court, as are cases in which a defendant is eligible for capital punishment. The Court gives extra consideration to cases in which the petitioner is either the United States (or one of its officials or agencies) or one of the fifty states (or one of its officials). Finally, the Court itself demonstrates interest in certain cases by inviting the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States. SCOTUSblog covers petitions that meet at least some of these criteria.
Read more . . .

Remember November 23rd: Obama's Eligibility to be Challenged at The Supreme Court

For Immediate Release - 21 November 2010
Washington Times -Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari scheduled for Conference on Tuesday, 23 Nov 2010, with U.S. Supreme Court
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/washington-times-kerchner-et-al-v-obama_21.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Eligibility Challengers Go Down Wikipedia's 'Memory Hole'

Obama's paltry paper trail raises serious questions
By Diana West
WashingtonExaminer.com
November 21, 2010

Wikipedia, the widely read, online, multiauthored encyclopedia, features an entry on the term "memory hole," which originated with the prescient if not also clairvoyant George Orwell. The Wikipedia definition begins:

"A memory hole is any mechanism for the alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts, or other records ... particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression that something never happened."

Wikipedia itself may have just offered a good example of how the mechanism works when unknown, unknowable site authorities "took down" a new entry on Lt. Col. Terrence "Terry" Lakin's challenge to President Obama's eligibility to hold office almost as soon it went up.

I read a screen shot of the entry and it is factual and non-inflammatory. Did Lakin's page go down the memory hole?
Read more . . .