Newest Ad - Kenya My Country, Tussker My Beer - The Elephant in the Oval Office Congress & the Major Media Won't Talk About - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 26, 19, and 12 July 2010 issues - pg 5The Newest Ad: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34860477/Kenya-My-Country-Tusker-My-Beer-The-Elephant-in-the-Oval-Office-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-20100726-Pg-5
The Evidence: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html
The Cover-up: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-believe-fix-was-in-for-2008-election.html
Add your vote here to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue:
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-
Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
A REALLY eye-catcher ... probably even in the Oval Office!!
ReplyDeleteWell, Obama may be a Tussker, be he certainly ain't a "wild tusker". Wild tuskers don't have handlers and no one tells them what to do.
ReplyDeleteTo those who say Obama's eligibility should be investigated by Congress rather than the courts:
ReplyDeleteSenator states that in regard to Obama’s eligibility: "I don’t have standing."
"But he said he supports those groups that are bringing the question to court.
"I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it,” he said."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=178321
-Personally, I think he's mistaken and has more standing than anyone. But, in a twisted way, he's correct. Even though he has standing, the compromised courts would claim he doesn't as it happily leads us down the primrose path of tyranny. The legislative points to the judicial, the judicial points to the legislative, all the while Rome burns and Obama fiddles.
Brand new news article: Obama was born in Kenya and has a different middle name:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thecitizen.co.tz/magazines/32-political-platform/2708-zanzibar-could-reverse-trend-to-have-president-from-pemba.html
-----
For more than 200 years US citizen could not pick a president who has roots outside the country. This might... have been the result of racism or belief that a person other than ‘original’ US citizen was capable of effectively leading the powerful nation and help it to maintain its values.
But after political changes globally, and strengthening of democracy, things have changed in the US. We witnessed last year a senator with his origins from east Africa, Barack Abdallah Husein Obama, becoming the first black US president. He won the race on Democrat ticket and was sworn on January 20, 2009 as US president.
Charles and Mario,
ReplyDeleteI really like the new ad.
It's almost as good as the "Ask no evil, See, no evil. hear, no evil" that got the liberals shorts in a tight knot.
You have probable seen another report on place of birth by a Tanzania newspaper describing "Abdallah" Obama's origins as from East Africa.
I sense little pieces of the Hoax structure beginning to fall and the pieces will only get bigger.
Thanks for all you do.
Regarding standing:
ReplyDeleteI've made this point before, but it seems that the courts' current rules for standing don't apply to cases involving challenges to a presidential candidate's eligibility.
If I understand standing correctly, a case is not justiciable unless it can be shown that you have suffered (past tense)a particularized harm.
The Constitutional requirement that a president be a natural born citizen is designed to prevent potential future harm. I say potential because there is no guarantee that an ineligible president will cause any harm whatsoever. Conversely, there is nothing to guarantee that an eligible president will not cause harm.
It seems to me that in principle it can never be demonstrated that by having an ineligible candidate on the ballot, a particularized harm has resulted. And you can never show that a future harm will occur.
It is a question of whether the president is eligible according to the Constitution. If this is not a legitimate case or controversy under the Constitution, then the eligibility clause has effectively been nullifed, not by the amendment process, but by judicial rules that don't apply to this case.
Doublee:
ReplyDeleteTry this explanation ...
=================================
Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email, Inc.
------------------
When is the Constitution like a Crocodile??
Apparently it is when you are a Federal Judge with lifetime (taxpayer paid) tenure on either the District Court of New Jersey or the Third Circuit Court of Appeals level as is clearly demonstrated by case 09-4209 Kerchner et al v. Obama et al. If you remember in the District Court, judge Simandle took it upon himself at the behest of the DOJ lawyers striving to defend Obama (who was initially sued before he took the Oath of Office and while still a private person) by repeatedly violating his judicial oath (meaning violating the Constitution that he swore to uphold).
In case you weren’t aware of that debacle, here’s a reminder (which should be read) so that you’ll have the background required to grasp what’s going on.
Read the rest here ...
=====================
... and then there's this:
If you go to the Mario Apuzzo website and actually read the Initial Appeals Brief of Jan 19, 2010, you're in for a real eye-opener (as are the DOJ attorneys "defending" Obama using our tax money).
That's doubly ironic since these attorneys - and their bosses - took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic but
they are now in the position of actually attacking that very document rather than defending it and are trying to get an obviously ineligible
man to remain in an office he has never shown himself to be eligible to hold.
The wonderful Apuzzo Brief is a primer on both Constitutional law, the meaning of it, the Founders' intent vis-a-vis Article II of the
Constitution and a forceful put-down of the lies and misinformation put forth by the Obama Flying Monkeys such as "smrstrauss" and others.
I’d urge everyone to read the Initial Appeals Brief from Attorney Apuzzo’s website along with the many essays by both Mario Apuzzo AND his Lead Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner. While there, it would really help to donate even a small amount to the publicity/education fund presently used only for full-page newspaper ads in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition.
The Initial Appeals Brief gives a very good overview of the original action AND it puts the lie to the many false arguments by the Obot Flying Monkeys about why BHO is either (their words) eligible to hold the office he now occupies OR that it (their words) doesn’t matter that he is not eligible.
Your understanding of the relation of the U. S. Constitution to We The People will be forever enlightened.
Actually, Obama's whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.
If you'd like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data - more than we've seen from Obama.
In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like "Our Boy" and really strikes a chord.
Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC - but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:
Three Little Words
Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!
Vote for Mario to be invited on the Judge's show.
ReplyDeletehttp://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-
Nither to your print, but Convicts are in controLL of our Country. Search for records in your local databases. What the con vicks R missing?
ReplyDeleteHi Charles,
ReplyDeleteI suggested Mario as a guest way back when it was only on the internet and not many viewers.
This is great to get this out. I posted it on free republic.
Charles and Mario,
ReplyDeleteIn the federal lawsuit against Arizona, a police officer, Salgado, apparently received "standing" to file on the basis he might be forced to enforce the law based upon a person's race.
Now. Is that not amazing. A police officer has "standing" but Americans don't have standing to determine Abdallah's eligibility.
I smell a rat.
Thank you for your efforts.
This morning at church we were being encouraged to sign our kids up for various fall church league sports teams: Football, Basketball, Soccer, Volleyball, etc.
ReplyDeleteTo register one must provide a birth certificate and a current utility bill showing proof of age and residence.
I am certain that if anyone ever even thought of challenging these requirements every court in the country would support the church and similar leagues and that all involved would have "standing".
It's interesting to contemplate that the president carries a "Football", too. You know, the one with all the codes and the special button that can end the game for the entire world.
We can clearly conclude that kids athletic leagues are of far more importance and taken much more seriously than the Presidency of the United States of America.
cfkerchner & Joe:
ReplyDeleteOn the voting for the Judge N. show, it is possible to vote way more than once, so keep trying several times a day.
Also, some of those who stand several posibions above Mario's current standing have ALREADY appeared so will not likely be interviewed again. At least 3 (asd possibly more) are in this category so that, in effect, puts Mario about in the top 20 now.
Anyone who has not voted for Mario and this case should do so. Here is the link. Cast your three votes.
ReplyDeletehttp://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-
Thank you in advance.
CDR Kerchner
Let me ask a question: is there any way to force the courts to declare exactly who or under what circumstances they would rule a Plaintiff has standing in these cases?
ReplyDeleteAs is stands now, the court is playing a game of whack-a-mole with everyone who has tried to bring such cases before them (Mr. Apuzzo, Mrs. Taitz, Mr. Donofrio, Mr. Berg, et al.). They have made 'standing' a moving, nebulous target that only they control the lever on; in other words, they control the transmission plus both the horizontal and vertical in this all-too-real episode of The Outer Limits. It reminds me of someone saying: "Guess which color I'm thinking of." And when you guess 'blue' (which, of course they were thinking of) they say, "Nope, chartreuse." (or should we spell it chartruse?)
So my ultimate question is: how do we pin down the courts so THEY declare what would constitute standing and end this treasonous shell game once and for all?
Charles and Mario,
ReplyDeleteAt Catholicbook dot com, Kitau from Mombasa, Kenya:
"we have a shrine for him[ Abdallah] and there are MANY who remember his birth here[Kenya] as he had a white mother.
Fortunately, they even have pictures of his parents with him immediately after his birth at Mombasa Hospital with the hospital in the back ground"
And, Grandma Sarah says she was PRESENT at his birth but has NEVER been to Hawaii. LOL
JayJay,
ReplyDeleteIf you look on the right side of the page, it states how many people voted. So I think it would be better if we get more people to vote, than multiple votes from one person.
I wonder if the Judge would be allowed to have Mario on. It is not main stream FOX, so maybe he will...
The National Tabloid Seen in Everyone's Supermarket Checkout Lines ... "Globe Magazine" Runs Another Front Page Story ...
ReplyDeleteWhy Obama Presidency is Illegal.
Obama Born in Africa!
http://www.globemagazine.com/story/529
Only 23% Say that the U.S. Government Has the Consent of the Governed - Rasmussen Reports™
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/23_say_u_s_government_has_the_consent_of_the_governed
A telling quote from the book and article:
"Just 23% now believe the federal government has the consent of the governed. In his new book, In Search of Governance , Scott Rasmussen says, “The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century.”
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
###