Monday, February 1, 2010

Glenn ... Are You Listening? Another Open Letter to Glenn Beck from Commander Kerchner

Glenn ... Are You Listening?
Another Open Letter to Glenn Beck

By: Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)

Posted 01 February 2010 at:

Dear Glenn Beck :

Are you listening to the People? Are you listening to the members of your "912 Project" who are trying to talk to you on air about the "elephant in the room" of American political discussion and legal question about the 2008 election. Or are you still telling your call screeners to block their calls and/or moderate them out of your chat rooms just like the members of Congress do? Congress is not listening to the People. The election in Massachusetts showed you the results of what happens when the elected officials do not listen to the People. Are you not listening to the People anymore either or just selectively listening? The questions are not the questions of a fringe percentage of the people. See these surveys:

A very large percentage, probably 75%+, of the "912 Project" folks and "Tea Party" folks believe that Obama is NOT constitutionally eligible to be the President or certainly at least want the matter fully and thoroughly discussed in public and investigated by the courts and want Obama's hidden and sealed early life original paper records unsealed and revealed. Photoshop'd digital images on the internet are legal proof of nothing.

And then there is the issue for the 1961 newspaper ads you tout as infallible proof. They were not placed directly by family members but instead generated by the Hawaiian Health Department upon any birth registration in their system, no matter what the source. Have you heard of the GIGO effect for birth registration systems. Falsified birth registration records in yields false record reports in Hawaiian newspapers out. This was likely done by the grandmother simply to get her newborn grandson U.S. citizenship, despite where he might have really been born or not. Births could be registered as having occurred in Hawaii with a simple mail-in form filled out by one family member alleging the birth occurred "at home" with no independent witnesses. No one back then in Hawaii checked the credibility of the facts placed on that form. No one at the time was thinking 45 years into the future that this child might someday be a candidate for President and thus someone would question and check the underlying credibility of the facts of the false birth registration in Hawaii after relatives accounts in Kenya surfaced saying that he was born there instead and when newspaper accounts in Kenya reported that Obama was Kenyan born. No one in 1961 ever thought this document fraud would be uncovered. Like much of Obama's early life background it was a decision of expediency by the family for that moment in time. Simply getting the highly valued basic U.S. citizenship for the child is the goal of any falsified birth registration in the U.S., today as well as back then. Simple as that. Listen to this discussion on the Bill Cunningham radio show.

Glenn, are you giving these people who have supported you a voice? Or are you silencing their voices from getting on the air? If you don't believe me, take a survey of them. Ask them on the air simply, "Do you believe that Obama is a "natural born Citizen" of the USA to constitutional standards?" And then put the responders and callers on the air to answer you and discuss it with you. But listen to them also and don't just immediately shout them down and ridicule them at first breath.

Not only does Obama have questionable constitutional eligibility because of questions as to where Obama may or may not have been born, but in addition to that and even more importantly it is because Obama's father was NOT a Citizen of the USA, or ever an immigrant to the USA. We are a nation of immigrants and Obama's father was not one of them. Obama was not the son of an immigrant as was falsely stated during his inauguration. The American people were lied to by Obama through the whole campaign enabled by a complicit media. Obama's father was not even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama was born with multiple citizenship and more specifically, he had allegiance to Great Britain at birth via his British Subject father. Obama was thus born a British Subject too under the British Nationality Act of 1948. Obama does not dispute this but won't allow a full public discussion or debate on the impact of this in Congress or in the courts. How can a British Subject be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the USA to "constitutional standards". The Democratically controlled Congress investigated McCain's citizenship status when asked by doubters of McCain but not Obama's when asked by doubters of Obama's. Have you ever thoroughly investigated why?

Progressives have deceived many Americans with rewriting history and the meaning of words. But have they fooled you too on the meaning of the unique legal term of art "natural born Citizen" in Article II of our Constitution? Or do you have your mind totally closed to the real truth for some reason known only to you? Or have threats been made against you and your family and/or your career if you tell the real truth of the meaning and intent of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our Constitution as it applies to Obama.

Obama may or not be a Citizen or a 14th Amendment "born Citizen" of the USA depending on where he really was born. But he is certainly NOT an Article II "natural born Citizen" (to constitutional standards) as is required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as the President and Commander in Chief of the military. See these URLs and the attached graphic for a visual presentation of the difference between a Citizen and a "natural born Citizen":

So Glenn, you believe that Obama is a Citizen. You said so on the air when you call doubters crazy and used Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals #5 "ridicule tactics" on your own listeners. Are you being deliberating deceptive?

Glenn, the real question is, do you believe Obama is a "natural born Citizen" as is required in Article II of the Constitution and as the framers of the Constitution understood that legal term of art to mean in 1789 and which has been affirmed since by at least four U.S. Supreme Court decisions which have never been overturned or reversed by any subsequent Supreme Court decision. The progressives have covered up these cases up or obfuscated their meaning in discussing "natural born Citizen" on the internet. That is function of Obama's "blog squads", to deceive people. They have filled Wiki and other sites with false and misleading information and redefined the meaning of words and historic legal terms of art in an attempt to rewrite history on the internet. But the truth is there in the cases for every intellectually honest person to read and understand. You can find those four cases and other relevant cases discussed in this excellent legal essay on "natural born Citizenship" by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

I suggest you do some more research on the founders and framers intent for the "eligibility clause" to be President and Commander in Chief of our military in Article II, to constitutional standards. Research who put that unique legal term of art into Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II and why! Obama had to repeat the Oath of Office a second time because it was not to "constitutional standards" the first time. Constitutional standards are far more important than popular opinion standards, especially when it comes to who can be President and command our military and who will reliably provide for the protection of our liberties and the national security of our nation.

Read the above link and the cited Supreme Court cases. Dissect the Apuzzo essay and cases he cites. Analyze them. Then present what you learn by doing an explanation of each case on your radio and TV shows if you have the courage to do so. Or have you been scared off doing it with threats to you and your family? Or does your fear of damage to your career trump your love of the U.S. Constitution and protection of the future of our Constitutional Republic for your kids and grandkids to come?

Are you in denial on this constitutional issue? Are you doing all that you can to expose the full truth about Obama and his early life and hidden and sealed records? Only you looking into the mirror each morning know the answer to that question. There are no heroes. Only ordinary people living in heroic times. How will you be remembered in this historic time and calling to preserve our liberty? Many have been called before and many in standing up to protect our liberty have perished or lost everything, except liberty. Where are you standing regarding the "elephant in the room" question of the first half of this century and the progressives' hail-Mary pass to their Socialist/Marxist America goal line with getting Obama elected even though he is not constitutionally eligible? Will you let it stand? Will you work to tell the real truth and discuss openly Obama's birth Citizenship status and questions on the air or will you allow the progressives to silence you as well, as the rest of us have been silenced who do not have the microphone you do?

We ask of you a full, thorough, and fair public "on air" investigation, discussion, and debate with your listeners on the question of Obama's birth citizenship status to "constitutional standards" as it applies to Article II of our Constitution.

Read again my previous open letter to you at this link for more information.
"An Open Letter to Glenn Beck"

I challenge you to debate Attorney Mario Apuzzo, a constitutional expert on Article II, on this subject on the air.

If you choose to avoid that challenge, then little old me would be happy to meet with you in private or public to discuss this more fully. You can contact me via my website link which is below my signature.


Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
P.S. Link to my first Open Letter to Glenn Beck:


jayjay said...

Another great letter to Glenn Beck - who apparently chooses to ignore the real world.

The shame will eventually be Glenn's as Obama's failure to ever show himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies will not remain hidden forever despite the efforts of his supporters.

Good work, Charles!!

Anonymous said...

For Glenn Beck: Ask the Right Question...

The Constitution of the United States - Does it matter?

Anonymous said...

“[ELIGIBILITY] That’s the elephant in the room… Until you [GLENN BECK] address that, you’re not addressing what’s really going on in [OBAMERIKA] that country.”


Stone cold [in OBAMERIKA]

…The film ...tells the true story of the stoning death of a woman in a rural area of Iran in the Mid-1980s.

...Soraya, was murdered the day before by the men in her village. In their justice system, she was found guilty of adultery and was given the punishment: death by stoning. This would be awful enough, if it were true. But Zahra tells a far more complicated story. Soraya’s husband, Ali, wanted to divorce her and marry a 14-year-old girl (he gets the girl’s parents’ permission for the match because her father has been accused of a crime and Ali promises to get him out of jail). But Soraya must agree to a not-very-generous offer of support for her and her four children that Ali proposes and she refuses. The mullah comes to her, trying to bully her into taking it, and offers another incentive – she can become his mistress by a loophole called temporary marriage and he will help support her.

She is disgusted by this and tells off the cleric. Her enraged husband [USURPER] now has the support of the local religious authority [CONGRESS], and they persuade the mayor that she [AMERICA] must be found guilty of a crime...

Now the die is cast. No appeal is possible, and no one listens to her [THE TRUTH]. The last third of the film is an excruciating account of the stoning. She [AMERICA] is buried up to the waist, and all the village boys [GLENN BECK] are enlisted to find stones [RIDICULING THE TRUTH] that are big enough to hurt her but not so big that they will kill her quickly. Soraya’s father and her sons are encouraged, virtually ordered, to hurl some of the first stones. Of course, her husband [USURPER] is the most eager participant...

"...All the men [NANCY PELOSI, HARRY REID, BARACK OBAMA] in the village really were cheering as they [GLENN BECK] stoned her [RIDICULED THE TRUTH]. My responsibility is to tell this story as honestly and truthfully as I can.”

What is most fascinating in the film are the details of how ordinary men [GLENN BECK] become complicit in the ghastly murder of a blameless woman [AMERICA] whom they have known their entire lives. “It’s very much about mob rule. The husband [USURPER] is ruthless, but the mayor [GLENN BECK] is conflicted… There is plenty of questioning going on, but there’s no moment when someone [GLENN BECK] steps up and says, ‘We’re not going to do this.’”

…Zahra, the victim’s aunt, fights for her niece. “She’s passionate about seeking justice, but she doesn’t have power,” said the director. At one point, as the men in the village try to stop the journalist from leaving with a tape of his interview with Zahra about the killing, she taunts them, saying, “If everything was according to Islam, why are you worried that word will get out?”

… the issue of the grotesque human-rights abuses against women (and, often, against men accused of homosexuality), including and especially stoning, which, until 2002, was sanctioned by the country’s legal code and continues to this day according to many reports, has been conspicuously absent on screen.

“[ELIGIBILITY] That’s the elephant in the room,” said Nowrasteh, and noted that cast members got messages from family and friends in Iran about stonings that had taken place during filming. “Until you [GLENN BECK] address that, you’re not addressing what’s really going on in [OBAMERIKA] that country.”

Christinewjc said...

Quite a while ago, I recall Glenn Beck saying something like this about the birth certificate issue (notice - NOT the ineligibility issue) on his radio show [paraphrased here]:

What are we going to do if Obama's BC shows he wasn't born in America? Are we going to overturn an entire election?

It appeared to me, even way back then, that he wasn't willing to find out the hard truth about this matter.

Also, I noticed that he didn't address the "natural born citizen" clause in the chapter on the Constitution in his "Arguing with Idiots" book. Thought that was strange. He could have at least mentioned the controversy, but chose not to do so.

Though what I am about to write may sound unrelated maybe it could reveal a reason why he doesn't touch the issue?

In Glenn's book, he wrote a list of "top ten bastards" of all time on page 222. Tiger Woods is listed as #2 - with this comment: "He's got a Swedish-supermodel wife, a gazillion dollars, and he plays golf for a living...bastard!"

When the Tiger Woods sexual-addict-womanizing scandal broke, Glenn admitted on his radio show that he and his researchers already knew about Wood's "double-life," but chose not to write it in the book. Why? For fear of being sued. Could THAT be the reason why he (and others) are reluctant to speak out against Obama's citizenship questions? Most of the high profile radio/t.v. talk show hosts are very rich. Could it all mainly be just about money?

Beck has also mentioned many times that he has had threats against him and his family on an ongoing basis. He has been forced to hire a tight security force for that reason. Could his reluctance to discuss this issue have a lot to do with the threats being hurled against him?

Next, I noticed that after becoming pals with Bill O'Reilly, a lot of his (Glenn's) anxiety over Obama's administration eased...a lot. Why? That's the question that I would like to have answered.

NO ONE in public media is willing to touch this subject in it's entirety. Most use their venue to ridicule the "birthers."

Glenn's unwillingness to address your letters, Mr. Kerchner, is strange and uncharacteristic; or so I used to think that way about him. He has been willing to tackle controversial subjects on his radio and T.V. shows. But this issue he adamantly chooses to avoid.

I have switched over and now listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show in the morning. At least he had the guts to talk about Obama's birth certificate issue.

I agree with your conclusion in your added comment here. Some day the truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end. It is just very hard to be patient when we see Obama and his terrible, uncontrolled spending and awful policies destroying our economy and Constitutional Republic!

James said...

Great Post Charles! However, from what we have seen with the media, Glenn Beck isn't likely to mention Obama's eligiblity anytime soon. I Think the only real way to bring out Glenn Beck is address himself in person. You will have find some connections that will allow you to have an audience with Glenn Beck. I know this sounds corny but is may true; you have to do what Mike Brady did in Brady Bunch... "Tell Bobby, I found someone who knows someone who knows Joe Namath."
Find someone who knows someone who knows Glenn Beck.

Incredulous said...

Seattle Times: The Constitution Is A Conspiracy

Mr. Boardman:
I would like to contribute a well-referenced and succinct article about presidential eligibility. As I notice a glaring omission of this subject matter, I would like to assist you in making the subject understandable to your readers.

Thanks, Ms. M.
We have published such material, although not recently. Obama's eligibility for the presidency concerns a tiny fringe of our readership. As far as I'm concerned, it's a nonissue. I'd rather use our limited space on other coverage.
Thanks again.

Mr. Birdwell: We both know that it's not a non-issue, and that the 49% of voting Americans who doubt his eligibility are not a "tiny fringe" group, and that far more Americans would grasp the meritorious Constitutional issues before our country if the media was not constrained. Anyone who dismisses the Constitution as such garbage, have no right to ask any protections from it for themselves or their own families.
I challenge you to let the truth see the light of day and let the readers decide. Even in as liberal a state as Massachusetts, "the people" can be counted on to think on their own. Why not give the opportunity in a very small dedicated space, to a succinct analysis? I promise nothing but the truth and ample references, in a very short article.
Perhaps you do not grasp this critical issue yourself. Indeed speaking with various Senators' and Congresspersons' representatives, they do not really dispute the ineligibility any longer per se, rather they emphasize that nothing can be done about it now, and think that it does not matter.
I argue that it does matter, and the Constitution is critical to the construct of our country.

Do you believe that the Constitution matters, Mr. Birdwell? If you say that you do, then you owe it the respect of analysis of the situation at hand. If you do not, you will have contributed to its destruction and that of our Constitutional Republic, which only exists at all, due to that contract.

Ms. M:
49 percent? You'll have to provide more credible evidence than an automated telephone poll conducted for World Net Daily, the drum beater for the birthers. The problem with such polls is that people who have no tolerance for such conspiracies simply hang up. Their views are not counted.
The state of Hawaii has validated Obama's birth certificate. Even the Republican governor of that state says it's legitimate. That makes Obama an American citizen and eligible to be president.
The Seattle Times does not promote conspiracy theories. This country has enough problems as it is.
Thanks for your offer, but no thanks.
David Birdwell

Incredulous said...

Thank you, you just proved the reason for Obama's ineligibility yourself, but based on your paragraph I am certain you are utterly clueless as to the reason why. You wrote that Obama is a US Citizen.
The fact is, a statutory US citizen is specifically precluded from eligibility per Article II section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution. That means a U.S. Citizen, defined by the 14th amendment and United States Code 1401, under which Obama's citizenship definition falls, is NOT eligible.
A Natural Born Citizen, which is a person born of 2 US citizen parents on US soil, is not a statutory citizen per Article II and Minor v. Happersett. In fact the term Natural Born Citizen is not in US Code 1401 or the 14th amendment at all, consistent with Article II, and its permutation is the only one omitted from USC1401.
Obama is a third generation British citizen and published this admission twice. His father was a UKC citizen, as was his grandfather. The founders who had vivid remembrances of fighting a bloody revolutionary war against the British would spin in their graves to know a born British citizen was installed as president contrary to the Constitution.
When you read Article II you will note that the term Natural Born Citizen is uniquely held separate from "Citizen", and that the only time in US history that a mere Citizen was allowed to be eligible for the presidency was for those alive at the time of the ratification.
What's news is not that Mr. Obama is ineligible, it's the media malpractice which you validated, which has harmed the American people. They will not be so forgiving as the truth comes to light, and it is, despite you.

Seattle Times: The Constitution Is A Conspiracy
How's that for a title?

Ms. M.
I don't have time for this. Please take your birther lunacy elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

"Obama was born with multiple citizenship [...]"

From what I have read this is likely not true. If Obama was born in Kenya -- as is very probable -- he was only a British citizen at birth since his mother was too young to transfer her American citizenship onto her son.

Magnus Johansson

Anonymous said...

There is an interesting story developing at HillBuzz. Click the link and read the comments to the following story:

Sleuthing of the Day: What is Saatchi & Saatchi, and how is it used by Organizing for America, David Axelrod, and the Obama White House?

Have you ever heard of a firm called Saatchi & Saatchi?

What connections are there between Saatchi & Saatchi and the following:
(1) Organizing for America
(2) David Axelrod
(3) the Obama White House

Is Saatchi & Saatchi where astroturfing and trolling begin for Obama?


MinervaMama Says:

February 2, 2010 at 4:25 am

Research Adam Werbach of Saatchi & Saatchi S, he seems to be another turtle on a fence post just as Obama – you know – you see a turtle sitting on top of a fence post and you know it didn’t get there by itself.

Werbach is the former President of the Sierra Club, co-founder of the Apollo Alliance and had been the executive director of Common Assets.

Obama’s Green Czar Van Jones was an Apollo Board Member, correct?

From a story at the following link: [...]

Werbach stated the following after the Democrats lost the 2004 election: “If you’re like me, the results of this election opened your eyes to the extent to which the leadership of the Democratic Party is mismanaging our political future. At some point, people like you and me have to get together and communicate these profound misgivings. But the bottom line is this: the Democratic Party is today in the hands of people who have failed to articulate a moral-intellectual vision for America and the world, and you can’t win the confidence of the electorate without a vision.”

In hands of people such as the Clintons? So is Obama the one (we are the ones we have been waiting for) that was selected [by Saatchi & Saatchi] to articulate a moral-intellectual vision for America and the WORLD?! From the teleprompter, of course.

MinervaMama Says:

February 2, 2010 at 4:42 am

Read an article from January 20, 2007 in the Huffington Post: [...]

Excerpt: “Two years ago, Adam Werbach, former President of the Sierra Club [co-founder Apollo Alliance], said in a speech that foundations need to stop funding environmental organizations … should instead be used effectively to start talking to the public about the benefits of progressive values and policies. He said we need to:… Take over the Democratic Party…”

In 2005, Adam Werbach was going “to fight to fix the deeply broken Democratic Party.”

– Saatchi & Saatchi S, formerly Act Now is a global public relations and marketing company started by Adam Werbach, its CEO, and now owned by advertising giant Saatchi & Saatchi.

Marjo Says:

February 2, 2010 at 8:26 am

On its website, Saatchi has a link to Lovemarks. If I understand correctly, Lovemarks was one of the top advertising ideas of the last decade, and was conceived by Saatchi. The Lovemarks website has Dr. Utopia [OBAMA] listed as a Lovemark. There are several webpages dedicated to what that constitutes exactly. There’s a list of Lovemarks – Dr. Utopia, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter (what?), Jesus Christ, Katie Couric, Hillary, Barbara Boxer, David Hasselhoff, and many others.

There is also a category “Other” Lovemarks, the list of which is quite extensive. I don’t see Organizing for America on there but it’s probably buried somewhere. I have a feeling Saatchi is not exactly [openly] advertising OFA.

Bess Says:

February 2, 2010 at 9:01 am

According to the fantastic website, Saatchi & Saatchi has done work for Al-Manar, the official television station of the Lebanon-based Hizbullah.


Anonymous said...

Is GROUNDSWELL a Saatchi & Saatchi Lovemark for Organizing For Obamerika?


Welcome to Organizing for America’s Groundswell, a new tool to break down big projects into simple parts that volunteers across the country can quickly complete together.

Anonymous said...

Saatchi & Saatchi Sustainability [CAP & TRADE GLOBAL WARMING/SOCIALISM]

Act Now is a pioneering sustainability consultancy led by Adam Werbach, one of the leaders in environmentalism [COMMUNISM/MARXISM/SOCIALISM] and sustainability in the United States…

Effective immediately, Act Now will be part of the new Saatchi & Saatchi S network, a revolutionary market offering designed to activate corporate and consumer action on a mass scale to address environmental and economic sustainability [SOCIALISM].
Act Now, working alongside the global 650-person shopper and retail marketing leader Saatchi & Saatchi X, will be uniquely positioned to catalyze change in the arena where most purchasing decisions are made – in the store. Adam Werbach [co-founder Apollo Alliance] has been appointed CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi S and will report to Andy Murray, Global CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi X.

Saatchi & Saatchi S combines Act Now’s personalized sustainability solutions with Saatchi & Saatchi’s global communications expertise in order to inspire consumers toward [SOCIALISM] making better choices. The new consultancy will integrate with core Saatchi & Saatchi services including brand navigation, planning, creative, media and brand philosophy. Saatchi & Saatchi S will offer sustainability services including analysis and strategic advisory, employee engagement, product and brand innovation, and consumer retail communication. Saatchi & Saatchi S currently has offices in San Francisco and Boulder (Colorado) and plans to open in New York, Chicago, Fayetteville (Arkansas) [HOME OF WAL-MART], London and Beijing in early 2008.

“Our motivation in acquiring Act Now – which will take the name of Saatchi & Saatchi S – is not only to better help our clients communicate [SOCIALISM] about the important issue of sustainability. Companies everywhere have a critical role to play in reducing CO2 emissions, in protecting the environment, and in taking corporate social responsibility seriously. The expertise of Saatchi & Saatchi S will allow them to understand these issues in a strategic way and help them find real solutions adapted to their needs, while communicating in an efficient and effective way...”

Anonymous said...

“We need to be a groundswell” – Adam Werbach – SIERRA CLUB ARTICLE

He’s Young, He’s Hip, He’s Your President


“If the primary purpose of the Sierra Club is to be concerned about the future, it seems natural that young people take responsibility for it,” says Adam Werbach.


“Ever since the Watt petition, I’ve been trying to figure out new ways to get young people involved in the environmental movement,” says Werbach.


Werbach’s goal is to reach out to as-yet untapped allies.


At the moment, he is focusing on helping mobilize the Club for the November elections.


Simple stories resonate. “We need to be a groundswell,” Werbach adds.

Anonymous said...

What connections are there between Saatchi & Saatchi and Organizing for America?


“We need to be a groundswell” – Adam Werbach – SIERRA CLUB ARTICLE


Welcome to Organizing for America’s Groundswell, a new tool to break down big projects into simple parts that volunteers across the country can quickly complete together.

Anonymous said...

Code Blue for Conservation


Following their own dream, S&N in 2003 helped bring together the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of environmental and other activist groups, labor unions, and business leaders that is promoting a giant investment plan to build energy-efficient factories, clean transportation, and renewable power systems. Invoking the program that put astronauts on the moon, the Alliance says its New Apollo Project can rebuild America’s infrastructure, create millions of jobs and boost economic growth (see box). As the biggest public-works bonanza since the New Deal, it could revive the political appeal of environmentalism.“The whole idea with Apollo is to achieve our global warming objective without talking about global warming and instead talk about jobs,” said Shellenberger in an interview with Conservation In Practice (CIP) .


Even so, some of the people close to S&N seem a lot like old-style progressives. One is Adam Werbach, a former president of the Sierra Club, a cofounder of the Apollo Alliance, and now Executive Director of Common Assets, a group that aims to protect assets ranging from the environment to Internet access to democracy. Soon after S&N presented their paper, Werbach chimed in with a speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco entitled “Is Environmentalism Dead?” His first line answered the question. “I am here to perform an autopsy,” he declared. In the movement he envisions, Werbach made clear that conservatives would not be welcome. “Are you a progressive or a conservative?” he asked the audience. “If you’re a conservative ... but you still love nature, we wish you well, but we need you to leave this movement. We invite you to attack the conservatives, but don’t try to make us ignore the plight of immigrants, stay out of gay rights, or stay silent on the war.”


cfkerchner said...

An Early Draft of the U.S. Constitution Found in Philadelphia PA.

Charles Kerchner


Sooner or later, because the evidence exists, the story will reveal itself.

When it does, ALL of those who attempted to silence Americans who WERE questioning with boldness but being ignored, will find themselves discredited.

Americans should accept NO excuses for such infidelity to freedom of the press. Beck, O'Reilly, Hewitt, Medved and a host of others who have made it their intention to "shame" people into silence, cannot be given a pass on this issue.

Placing your personal self-interest above the economy & safety of this nation, which is placed in jeopardy by not getting to the bottom of this, is a complete intentional negligence.

Accountability is owning your choices

Responsibility is the ability to respond to your choices

These people have revealed themselves as not caring about America but about advancing a political agenda. There's no other way around it.

Keep up the good fight!

Pragmaticite said...

What if we pooled our resources to contract a nat'l survey by a recognized pollster?

Maybe something like:

"Are you satisfied that BHO has properly documented his Constitutional eligibility to serve as POTUS?"

How much would it cost for a one-question poll of 1,000 voters?

James said...

HI Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate Obama’s HI Birth
It might prove fruitful to continue to pound on Hawaiian Officials.

jayjay said...


We can perhaps do even better than that by "pooling our resources" and contributing even small amounts to the website.

Most people don't realize how much even $5 or $10 donations add up and are exceedingly helpful. ALL of that money goes for publicity and education - e.g., the full-page newspaper ads that are truly dynamite!! None of it is used to benefit any person.

If you haven't seen any of those full-page ads you should really look at several. They are wonderful examples and are available from the Apuzzo website. You can even download the *.pdf version and send them to others.

In case you've not placed any such ads, I know that the color rate for full-page ads in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition was recently shown as $5,000 for a one-time insertion. Even at some sort of discount, the ad expenses are enormous ... how about helping rather than just talking about the eligivility issue. All donations really help!!! Get with it folks!!

Pragmaticite said...


I absolutely do support Mr. Kerchner's site, have contributed and will again as finances may allow. The advertorials just keep getting better.

It was my assumption that the survey could be contracted thru, if Mr. Kerchner would consider such a venture. I would not think of trying to draw support away from this foremost effort in the eligibility issue.

I'm just wondering if it could be productive to try a new approach that might help generate publicity - trying to think of new opportunities.

Anonymous said...

Citizen Wells Red Phone Challenge to Glenn Beck

Greg Goss said...

Glenn Beck's ratings are through the roof as is Boll O. Every time someone brings up the "BC" issue they are maligned and called loony and so on and so forth. Even bring up missing college records now gets you lumped in with the "birthers". It is truly a shame that the BC issue took off and not his parental lineage. Maybe because the BC issue was too easy to grab onto.

But when you look at people in the media, and politicians, that have brought this up they have been called names, threatened or even lost their jobs, ie Lou Dobbs who has a bullet hole in his living room wall. I have heard passing comments from Hannity to the effect that "My family is more important than that".

Beck has a family too. He also has a game plan and it is to expose Obama and his minions for what they are and drive them out of office. I happen to think he is having an impact, a huge impact. For him to jump to the so called loony side could spell the end of him. So with all due respect Commander I think he knows exactly what he is doing, and not going to do.

I think history will note the cowardliness of people like Beck in this regard but I can't condemn him just yet. We will keep fighting the good fight and in the end we will prevail. We just don't when the end is.

Incredulous said...

"I take great comfort in knowing nothing will ever come of this nonsense. Obama was born in Hawaii. He's a natural-born citizen. Doesn't matter who his parents were. All your ideological and/or racist arguments don't apply. But, hey, don't take it from me or the countless judges who have dismissed these stupid cases. You're obviously the smartest person on the planet. "
David Birdwell, Editor
The Seattle Times

James said...

Philip J. Berg, Esq, will be on WTNT’s Kuhner Show with Jeff Kuhner, Friday, February 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM Eastern Time. You can listen live at and it can also be heard in the DC area radio station 570 AM weekdays 12:00-3:00 PM.

Please join Phil Berg and Jeff Kuhner and learn the updates and events surrounding the Constitutional issues regarding Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack H. Obama serving as the President of the United States.
Maybe you guys can get on too. The show is supposed to be 3 hours long.

David said...

O'Reilly again, in his Talking Points Memo last night, blasted the citizenship issue. He again basically stated that the newspaper birth announcements prove that Obama is a US citizen.

Sigh. He either doesn't get it or willfully remains ignorant about the issue of Obama not being a "natural born citizen". Who knows, he may does zero research himself and relies on lackys to do all the work, thus shielding him from the truth...and this website!

cfkerchner said...

The Two Newspaper Ads Prove Nothing!

For any folks needing the details to point out how those newspaper ads really got placed in the Honolulu Advertiser and the other paper in 1961, read the opening part of my "Glenn Are You Listening? ...." letter at:

And also this discussion on the air I had with the national talk show host Bill Cunningham:

And feel free to post these links far and wide to any other blogs you frequent to educate Beck and O'Reilly and others as to how the two newspaper ads really got into those papers and why. The GIGO effect for birth registration databases. False data in yield false records and announcements out.

Charles Kerchner

cfkerchner said...

Obama's prayer: 'Don't question my citizenship' | by WND


But I will ...

My comments on his remark ...

Hello Mr. Obama ... are you listening? Being a "natural born Citizen" is an eligibility requirement of the U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. You know that founding document, the fundamental law of our Republic, that you just want to ignore and throw on the scrap heap of history and instead install Saul Alinsky style pure democracy and rule mob rule using deception and deceit of the middle class to push through your Socialist/Marxist agenda. Sorry Obama, we are a nation of laws not men. We are a Republic, not a pure democracy. Simple majority rule does not change the Constitution, the fundamental laws of our nation which guarantees the inalienable rights of all people. Including those temporarily in the political minority. You can not trample on the rule to win the game and have it stand up. Having an ineligible player on the field in a football game score the winning touchdown does not stand simply because the ineligible player made it across the goal line. And just because you made it across the election goal line and with your minions of lawyers and millions of dollars in foreign money and support got yourself sworn in does not revoke the rules of the game. Your tenure in office is going to end. You lied to get elected. Your records will be revealed.

It is the Constitutional duty of those who took an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution to do so even if you considered those words to be "words, only words" when you uttered them. Words seem to come easy to you. But the truth does not. And "We the People" will keep asking questions about your sealed original birth registration records, Occidental College records, adoption records in Indonesia or elsewhere, and travel/passport records for the first 35 years of your life until we get the true answers and facts revealed to a controlling legal authority as to your true legal identity. Digital PhotoShop'd images of alleged computer print out summaries of records provided by the Daily Kos and parroted by your associates and friends at and do not pass the "constitutional standards" test. Read this to refresh your memory:

You know what that term "constitutional standards" means don't you? Remember you had to re-do the Oath of Office on inauguration day so as to meet those standards. Well a constitutional eligibility review and full and in-depth public discussion about your exact citizenship status, the hidden records, and your eligibility for the office you sit in needs to be re-done by Congress to "constitutional standards". It's going to happen whether you like it or not. You cannot hide the truth forever. And the truth about you Mr. Obama will come out. The truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end.

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
P.S. Looks like my ad campaign in the Washington Times is "smoking them out". They can run but cannot hide from the truth. Help the cause and make a donation to keep the ads going:

William said...

I would like Glenn Beck and others in the Media to explain to me why the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 has attempted to be changed to include “other citizens”? According to Beck’s definition, all U.S. Citizens are qualified. If Beck’s definition held true, then why are there past requests of change to this Article? In 2006, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate an associate lawyer Sarah Herlihy in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic. She also proclaimed that U.S. Citizens “fear” other U.S. Citizens that have duel or multiple allegiances to foreign countries and this was simply ridiculous.

Why even “Mention” or introduce House or Senate Resolutions/Bills to include “other Citizens” in the U.S. as Qualified if they are all Qualified in the First Place? Explain that one Glenn..

Incredulous said...

Good point William.

Here’s just two of the multitudes of attempted or proposed amendments to the Constitution to allow a citizen, under certain circumstances, to be eligible to be president.
Now, if a “citizen” were eligible as per the dumbots arguments, there’d be no need for amending the constitution. Since only natural born citizens are eligible, the Obamalings just circumvented the entire document altogether.

109th Congress (2005-2006) Sen. Orrin Hatch
To allow non-natural born citizens to become President if they have been a citizen for 20 years
107th Congress (2001-2002)
To allow for any person who has been a citizen of the United States for twenty years or more to be eligible for the Presidency

Obviously Orrin Hatch and everyone else knows Obama is not eligible

Incredulous said...

Indonesia threatened to remove Obama's bronze statue, and now Obama is flying to Indonesia...I don't think it's over the statue, I think it's over the fact that they know he was adopted and are blackmailing him over US funds not to reveal that he is only an Indonesian citizen...or was before he chose his Kenyan citizenship...why else would he return to Kenya just in time to do so?


I think that's why he harped on his "citizenship" at the prayer breakfast. He's just like Auntie Zeituni, another illegal alien living in government housing.

William said...


Don’t forget the 110th Congress introduced S.2678, as proposed by Senator Claire McCaskill on Feb. 28/2008.

There are a few interesting points in this proposal. First, the Title of S.2678 reads:…. A bill to clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States “citizens” while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President…….

Notice that she points out parents (more than one) when discussing?……ie… “United States Citizens”..

However, in the summary of S.2678 it changes to read:…. Declares that the term "natural born Citizen" in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes “any person” born to “any U.S. citizen” while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.

Notice that she now adds the “To Include” (ie..also), whereby it now only takes one U.S. Citizen and not two?

The second interesting portion of S.2678 is that it was co-sponsored by Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Sen Menendez, Robert, Sen Coburn, Tom and Sen Obama, Barack.

The Third interesting piece to this is that it was 26 pages in length but can only be found by cover page in the congressional and Senate archives, S.2678 in its entirety cannot be found as others easily can be. Another note to raised is that it states it was “Read Twice” on the floor and “Committee on the Judiciary for review”.

Interesting enough, I searched over 6 hours yesterday to read the archives on the floor (to see who said what) and there was absolutely nothing about it.

Lastly, remember, although this failed to pass, it ultimately was the foundation conerstone that lead to the Senate Resolution 511 declaring Senator McCain qualified to run for President.

William said...

I am fully aware that the NBC legal status is the most important issue, however what really crawl’s my shorts is when those in the media claim that Hawaii DOH announced they in fact have Obama’s BC on file “in accordance to Hawaii law”.

Ok, we the “Birthers” (Constitutionalists) know that and we do not disagree with this fact, this is not the question folks (media). The question is “HOW” did Obama “ACQUIRE” his BC? Which of the “SEVERAL METHODS” of acquiring an official Hawaii BC did his family use? Was it from a Hospital with Witnesses? Was he born in a taxi cab, on a boat, in a home with witnesses? Was it simply from a single family member that used a mail in form claiming the birth happened in Hawaii?

In reference to the Hawaiian news papers running an article as proof is simply sensational! All they do is report “anyone” that applies for a Hawaiian BC from the DOH, nothing more. This proves nothing. In fact, in the very same article the newspaper listed an address in which the Obama’s never resided? Is the newspaper only good for 50% of its reporting getting 1 out of 2 things correctly? Or did it simply list the address given as listed on the application? If anyone answered the latter is true, move to the head of the class. Did the newspaper “Investigate” any of these facts? Of course not, it’s not their job nor is that how they report.

Could we image a criminal justice system in the U.S. whereby such analysis required no deeper investigations from law enforcement agencies than that of our media? If a Detective investigating a murder asked about the suspect’s location during the time of the murder and the alibi within their civil rights claimed the suspect was with them and therefore could not have been the murderer, the news reported the claim and therefore the Detectives should never investigate such claims any further for verification? Or the Judge said he was not involved in corruption and the news paper repeated it? Or the Governor said and the newspaper repeated his claim, therefore it’s true? Do I need to say more with this analogy?

William said...

And while I am on a grammatical incorrect rant, I’ll add to it. The DOH in Hawaii admitted in 2009 through an IPA request that Obama had in fact, altered his BC, also known as “Amending”.

Since Glenn Beck and his load of professional investigative journalist have all the answers, what was the reason Obama altered his BC? Was it due to the newly introduced 1982 law from Hawaii, whereby those that “Acquired” an Hawaii BC, born “Outside” the Hawaii Jurisdiction and boarders or Born overseas so long as 1 parent at least lived in the State for 1 year during the application, could now “Amend” their BC? Or was it for other reasons that Obama amended it?

Glenn, I know you have all the answers for idiots such as myself and have fully invested this matter, please explain it me.

jayjay said...


And also, even if je WERE validly born in HI and has a completely unquestioned HI BC that we get to see, the big question is not that at all (the BC) nor even where he was born.

The real stunner in all this which far too many people sail right past screaming "BC, BC, BC ,,," is the fact that the BC itself really doesn't matter since his father was an alien which BHO has stated and at the time if his birth he was governed by those sames laws ... the British Nationality Act of 1948 making him, clearly, at best a dual citizen or at least a British citizen.

In eithger case, BC or not, he is not legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies - nor has anyone ever shown him to be eligible.

That's what the Kerchner et al case is all about.

Incredulous said...

the WTNT AM 570 show today on Obama' eligibility w/Berg was hanging up on the British citizenship callers.

cfkerchner said...

I have written an email to Jeff Kuhner of WTNT 570 of Washington DC to ask him to invite Attorney Mario Apuzzo on to his show to provide the true meaning and definition of "natural born Citizen" as per historical legal treatise and subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, none of which have ever been overturned or reversed by the Supreme Court, and of course to discuss my lawsuit. That is why Obama is fighting so hard to keep my case out of the Courts. I do hope Jeff contacts Atty Apuzzo and invites him on for a follow on show on the "eligibility issue" of Obama, and three political party candidates in the 2008 election. This is why all the political power brokers and the enabling media are silent on all this, including Fox News. They had "skin" in the game and now they're covering up for their part in the deception. It's the "Perfect Storm for a Constitutional Crisis".

CDR Kerchner

jayjay said...


Be sure to let all of us know if Jeff Kuhner is going to have you on his show as he writes for a number of MSM outlets such as recently in the Washington Times
with an opinion article entitled:

"America's suicide attempt" in the Feb 5, 2010 issue.

Just log onto the Washington Times website and enter "kucher" in the search block and look for the one with that title.

If he should ask you to be on, hopefully you'rr bring Charles on also as you make a very good "interview pair" sometimes catching each others flubs and allowing the other some "thinking time".

Sallyven said...

I was reading another blog this morning, actually an excellent post discussing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, that included this quote from GK Chesterton:

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

It is interesting to look at this passage in light of the “natural born” issue, and on a larger scale, the Constitution itself. The Progressives seem to want to remove the fence and build a wall that changes with society’s whims….

Guy4013 said...

Hi Charles and Mario,

Thanks for the great letter to Beck.

I now call him Glenn Alinsky for his calling true Patriots stupid birthers.

Yesterday, Jeff Kuhner of WTNT, 570 AM out of Washington did three hours of Obama eligibility. His guess were Berg and Corsi and a couple of others(WND). He promised to do more shows to discuss the issue.

I hope you can call him and volunteer to appear on the show.

As a second thought on the Hawaii birth announcements Beck likes so much, They only say "son" born. They do not say Barack Obama born.
One jumps to the conclusion that it is Barack's birth but it does NOT say that.

There is no actual birth name published for the newborn, only "male" or "son"

This was also required under Hawaii law to publish it as public records based upon information received by the DH of Hawaii.

That's not much legal evidence of anything,i.e "son" does NOT equal Barack.

Thanks for your hard work to solve this treasonous affair.

jayjay said...

Mario et al:

Apologies are in order ...

should be:

...enter "kuhner" in the search block ..."

Incredulous said...

jayjay, I agree, Kerchner and Apuzzo give the immutable Constitutional razor's edge to the ineligibility case.

Their's approaches the pure logic stance, which cannot be defeated.

Between Obama's cosponsoring of McCaskill's SR511 and Feinstein's amendment and his twice published admission he was born British...even Obama openly admits he's ineligible.

How long did he think the farce could last? Wow.

Unknown said...

Here's what I take from reading this blog:

A natural born citizen is a citizen as conferred by natural law, by both blood and soil; born on US soil of parents both of whom are citizens. Any diminishment of those standards of natural law through any manmade law - like equivocations about various circumstances, such as only one US citizen parent is permissiable as long as the child is born on US soil - are a violation of the Framers' intentions and a diminishment of the national security device purposefully included in the phrase, "natural born Citizen," which secures the greatest possible protections for the undivided loyalty of our singular Commander-in-Chief.

Is that about right, Mr. Apuzzo; Mr. Kerchner?

cfkerchner said...


That about sums it up. It's a national security issue with the founders and framers wanting future Presidents and the Commander in Chief of our military after the founders and framers had departed this earth to have sole allegiance the the USA and claims on them at birth as to citizenship solely and only by the USA to minimize any chances of foreign influence. George Washington, Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, had that phrase added to the eligibility clause for President at the behest of John Jay to minimize the chances of foreign influences on future Presidents since they knew we would be a nation of immigrants. They wanted all future Presidents to be children of two Citizens at birth and be born in the USA so the child would have maximum loyalty via birth to the USA and only the USA. John Jay later went on to be the first U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Thus it is true, as you point out, they looked to "natural law" and "natural born Citizen" status which provides the strongest protection for sole allegiance at birth. Vattel codified natural law in his 1758 legal treatise, "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law". The founders used his writings extensively in the writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution using the newly edited French edition printed in 1775. Four copies where provided to Benjamin Franklin for use by the Continental Congress by the editor of that edition, Mr. Dumas. A copy of Benjamin Franklin's thank you letter to Mr. Dumas still exists in which Franklin points out how much in demand that book is by the delegates to the Continental Congress. The founders were fluent in French since it was the diplomat language of that time. The founders looked to the "Law of Nations" for guidance in forming their new form of federal government since they had it with the English King and their parliament. The book's name "Law of Nations" is even mentioned in the Constitution in Article I in the enumerated powers given to the new federal government. The best English translation of Vattel's writings was done in 1797 and that is the one that is quoted in several Supreme Court decisions in the first 100 years of our nation.

You summed it up very well.

CDR Charles Kerchner

cfkerchner said...


You've likely read this piece by Attorney Apuzzo, but in case you missed it, here is the link to his essay explaining how "natural law" as codified in Vattel's writings, "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law", became the common law of the USA via many Supreme Court decisions in the first 100 years of our nation. Our founders and framers started with a clean slate and created a new form of national government based on the enlightened writings about natural law by scholars like Vattel. They created a written Constitution as the fundamental law of the nation to which all men and political bodies are subservient, including the Pres and Congress, as advocated by Vattel with the People as the true sovereigns. This concept of a Republic form of government with a written Constitution became a beacon to the world and was emulated over the centuries as a shining example of the best form of government to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness inalienable rights of the people.

CDR Charles Kerchner

Unknown said...

The plot thickens. Interesting theories on BO's birth from American Thinker.

William said...

I was just listening to an interview from NPR radio between Joseph Farah and the interviewer (didn’t catch her name). What was absolutely jaw dropping is that she explained to Joseph the U.S. Constitution is a “Living” Document that changes over time and its interpretations are to be changed by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices! How these people are so misinformed or are they simply bafoons? It’s only a couple of min. long if anyone interested in listening.

jayjay said...


I couldn't get your link to work but keep in mind, after all, that NPR has far more than its "fair share" of far leftists (aka Communists) so the "living document" nonsense uindoubtedly stems from that viewpoint.

One would hope that Farah would have rebutted that but he may not have the proper background - don't know!!

Unknown said...

I wrote my own letter about this subject to Glenn Beck and posted it on Never heard back from the guy or his "cohorts".
I said some of the same things Commander Kerchner said in his letter.
I watch Beck still but I no longer have the respect for him I once "thought" I had.

My letter is posted here:

Abe Abrams
451 6th St. PO Box 662
Decatur, AR 72722

Unknown said...

Another article about "Presidential Constitutionality" from "The Patriot Update" concerning, Beck, O'Reilly and Breitbart. Very good reading about the behaviour of these men.

jayjay said...

Mario Apuzzo et al:

If the DOJ lawyers were truly living up to their oath to defend the U. S. Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, they'd be staying away from this case in droves and URGING Obama to produce the requested documentation of his life's history. As it is, Obama does not have to pay for any "legal effort to overturn the US Constitution" from his own pocket.

If you go to the main 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 ridiculous 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 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.

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!!

cfkerchner said...

Glenn Beck's ratings plumment by over a million viewers after he starts deliberately insulting people seeking to support and defend Article II of the U.S. Constitution. His ratings have dropped steadily for the last 5 weeks as he continues to insult and demean "constitutionalists" seeking answers about Obama's constitutional eligibility question to be in the Oval Office. Instead of leading those asking constitutional questions, Beck has taken to openly ridiculing them and has joined the far left and calling "constitutionalists", birthers and put them on his black board with communist America haters such as Van Jones. I encourage everyone to not watch Glenn Beck until he stands up to support the People asking questions about Obama's hidden and sealed records and Obama's Article II eligibility to constitutional standards.

CDR Kerchner

Unknown said...

I heard Glenn when he did his ridicule of the birthers. He sounded more like Chris Mathews than Glenn Beck. He kept saying that people were wanting Obama to produce a doctor, and he knows that nobody is asking for that, but a birth certificate. He was out of character big time. Maybe it was his way of telling the audience that he wasn't doing this willingly. The intimidation is tremendous. All courts have fallen. All members of congress. It is a no brainer, the man is ineligible. If we're waiting for an admission of guilt we'll never get it. We already know the truth and we already know that the system won't do anything about it. The ball is in our court.