From Charles Kerchner of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit, a new ad placed in the weekly edition of the Washington Times for July 20, 2009:
“The below linked advertorial is running tomorrow in the Washington Times National Weekly edition on page 9. Introduced to the readers of that national newspaper with this issue is an additional key point about Obama and one more of his many flaws in his exact citizenship status, i.e., that:
“Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject”.
And of course, as a British Subject at birth, Obama is not eligible to be President and the Commander-in-Chief of our military forces since he is not, and never can be, a “natural born citizen” of the USA as is required under Article II of our Constitution, per the intent of the founders of our nation and framers and legal scholars of our Constitution such as Franklin, Jay, and Washington, and per legal constitutional standards.
If you can, please give some coverage of this new key point in this newer version of the advertorials I have been running, i.e., that Obama was born a British Subject when born in 1961 no matter where he was born. His father was a British Subject and thus under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Obama was a British Subject at birth too.
While we who have been fighting this battle may clearly know and understand that point, most in America do not, nor do they understand the importance of that point as to natural born citizenship status under Article II of our Constitution, to constitutional standards.
Also if you can, please point out that if your readers wish to see more of this type of advertising in a national newspaper on the issue of Obama’s citizenship flaws, that they can now help the cause and contribute to funding the advertorials at: http://www.protectourliberty.org/ I thank all the patriots who have contributed to-date to make this latest advertorial insertion possible. With help, more will be done. Thank you.”
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Kerchner v Obama & Congress