Kerchner v Obama

Imagine my surprise when I stumble over a link in a comment over at American Thinker that leads to a site being run by Mario Apuzzo which informs me that as of March 22, 2010, he is awaiting a response back from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on whether or not they will grant oral arguments in the ongoing Kerchner v Obama case. Yeah, I was pretty amazed to find out that the progressive media outlets all lied about all of these cases being dead and buried, because clearly they are not.

For those of you who may not know, Kerchner v Obama is one of the lawsuits which was filed shortly after the November 2008 election in which we the people allege that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. You may of course wonder why that makes any difference, and I'll tell you:

US Constitution - Article II, Clause 5 said:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So why was this so important to the founders? They feared the possibility of foreign infiltration into the nation's highest office above all else because it holds the most might and power of them all, in a single person. The President is the commander of our military and our liaison with other foreign powers throughout the world. This office being infiltrated represents a critical national security issue that the founders wished to prevent.

Ok ok, I can already hear it: "But Obama was born in Hawaii!". There is no proof of that. Obama has not complied with the Constitutional requirements to verify his eligibility. Further, if you read through the links offered on Apuzzo's website, you'll soon discover that his own grandmother was asked where Obama was born, and she responds twice that he was born in Kenya. Not only that, they got it on tape. before she showed up dead Folks have trotted out a "certificate of live birth" that was obtained in 2007, but Mr. Apuzzo has also done a nice job of debunking that as a forgery, or as a document which was never accepted by the state of Hawaii as valid.

There's a lot more information to absorb, and I urge you to visit Apuzzo's website where he lays out his extremely compelling case, including his 37 page appellate brief filed with the 3rd Circuit.

I am quite pleased to see that this fight is not over, and that we may yet prevail in getting the Kenyan Usurper out of our Whitehouse!

Correction: I received a correction via email on this. As it turns out, his Kenyan step-grandmother is the one they have on tape with the conversation and she is still very much alive. It was his maternal grandmother who died recently.
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« Sandbox 2.0.7
Clash of the Titans »

Posted on Mar 24, 2010 2:24 am by Samson in: | 20 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Hmm, so, at this point, if that fight were to be won and Obama determined not to have been qualified for the position to which he was elected, does everything he did in office get undone? What about laws he signed into effect, effectively illegally? ;)

       
From what I gather after reading through several links he has, yes, every Executive Order he signed, every Act of Congress he signed into law, every appointment he's made, all of it goes away because none of it will have been legally done. That means no more Obamacare, no more whatever is left of porkulus, and yes, no more Sonja Sotomayer. She'd probably even have to recuse herself from the case when it reaches the Supreme Court because of the conflict of interest.

       
Talk about a series of firsts.. and people thought his election was historic.. :lol: ..they had no idea how very much so, especially if this one makes it to the Supreme Court and it's determined that he wasn't lawfully elected due to lack of qualifications.. so, does that mean the runner up in the last election becomes the president or does the current VP or do we host a brand new general election? This is a whole new avenue of possibilities that this country has never before faced, has it ever even been considered?

       
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #4 Mar 24, 2010 12:03 pm
Samson & Conner:

Not only Sotomayor would need to be recused but also Ginsburg who has publicly stated that she believes that her grandson (born in Italy) would be a natural born citizen - all without hearing any arguments or seeing any actual evidence in the Kerchner et al v. Obama et al case. Clearly that means she is biased by her personal circumstances already and should not be eligible to rule on the case - which WILL, no matter the Appeals Court decision, go to SCOTUS for final hearing. Both Justices are flaming liberals.

As to the succession to the office for which the man has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold, that would probably have to eventually be determined by SCOTUS also since the case and the situation it represents are unique in the 233-year history of the country. The Kerchner case represents what is called an issue of First Impression; something never previously before the Court. It is a very serious and legally sound case if you trouble to research it.

For that reason it would be very helpful if all would check into:

www.protectourliberty.org

and donate even $5 or $10 to the funds being used to inform and educate others about the matter which is completely privately funded. None of the funds go for legal expenses; all money is used for education/publication efforts such as the series of full-page ads that have been running in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition over about the past year. Attoeney Apuzzo works pro bono and is doing a wonderful job as can be seen.

       
If you're right, that's really disappointing to hear.

That's kind of what I'm thinking too, it's something that's never come up before and was never actually contingencied for. (Is that even a word?)

Alas, if I had an extra $5-10 to spare for political stuff, I wouldn't be as worried about the new health care law that Obama just signed, but I live primarily off the money my wife gets for being disabled. I'm very glad to see that this is being pursued and I wish the folks pursuing it the very best of success, but I can't help financially. I can help by posting here and other places to help with educating people, but I'll quote John Lennon on this to help clarify my position...
Back in 1968, John Lennon, in the song Revolution, said:

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait

Actually, in my case it's not so much about not funding people with minds that hate so much as not being able to help financially, but it really does seem fitting, and I'm sure Dwip and Fury would agree for their own reasons, maybe Regina too. ;)

       
Edited by Conner on Mar 24, 2010 3:13 pm
Correction: I received a correction via email on this. As it turns out, his Kenyan step-grandmother is the one they have on tape with the conversation and she is still very much alive. It was his maternal grandmother who died recently.

@Conner: You do understand that the John Lennon song you're quoting is actually a progressive revolution song that's intended for the purpose of inciting a communist revolt, right?

       
Yes, Samson, I do, but it's still got great lyrics and taken out of context they felt appropriate enough. :shrug:
What can I say, Dwip's right that the commies did have much better propaganda. ;)

       
Did have? They still do. The progressives are masters of propaganda, this is one of the big things Glenn Beck is trying to tell people. They play this game of changing terminology for things so that it sounds good - for example: "Social Justice". Sounds great, right? Except it's code for the path to Marxism.

       
Well, yeah, I suppose they do still have the best propaganda writers, on the other hand, to give credit where it's due, they've had much more experience at it than anyone else too. Either way, when I quote a song's lyrics, I'm usually only going for the actual statement rather than the message behind it. I love music so everything strikes a chord for me, literally, as it were. ;)

But as far as the message behind a song, I generally far prefer to interpret the lyrics as I hear them rather than as someone else hears them or even as someone intended them. Though there are a few exceptions to everything, this one too. For a couple of quick examples of exceptions, the song Fire and Rain, by James Taylor, has a great folklore-ish legend behind it but an almost as good real story behind it. (http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/firerain.asp) and the song In the Air Tonight which has a much cooler folklore-ish background than the reality. (http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/intheair.asp) ;)

       
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #10 Apr 6, 2010 7:44 am
what constitution?

       
Excuse me, Anonymous? What are you asking and of whom? The only place I even see the word constitution on this page is in the original post where it's rather spelled out exactly which constitution and even where within that document that he's talking about.. (nevermind the fact that the entirety of this discussion took place on March 24th, a single day over two weeks ago...) I assume that you're not the same anonymous poster who joined us for that discussion at the time posting about protectourliberty.org then.

       
Perhaps anon was being sarcastic since Obama uses the Constitution as toilet paper?

And no, it's not the same anon.

       
I suppose that's as plausible as anything else.

Didn't think so.

       
Random blip out of nowhere, via Drudge: http://www.kpho.com/news/23202195/detail.html

GO ARIZONA!

       
Indeed! It's too bad the folks representing the state seem to think it's so silly. I wonder how they'll feel if they find out that Obama can't actually produce the documentation come next election..

       
Well I doubt they'd be happy with it, but Arizona will have done a monumental service to this nation if they can get that bill passed into law.

       
No, if they really do believe it to be a silly measure because they already believe in Obama that firmly, I doubt they would be happy, but I agree that they'd have done the nation a great service despite themselves if it comes to pass.

       
Long time since the last update here - but Kerchner v Obama has a docket number at SCOTUS now. Looks like things are finally coming to a head, one way or the other. Isn't it funny how nobody in the media has made one single mention of this case actually getting this far?

       
I'm actually surprised that Fox hasn't even said anything. Maybe they're all waiting to see if the judge will simply throw the matter out or hear it before they hype it up?

       
Well it's done. SCOTUS has denied writ of certiorari which has effectively killed this particular case. The Kenyan Usurper gets to keep his stolen office for a time longer unfortunately.

       
<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31