Main Menu

Archive | Charles Kerchner

Disgusted birther leaves country

Paul Irey (pictured right) knows how to use a typewriter, but not so much how typewritten documents are converted into electronic documents through scanning and image processing. His biased pseudo-expert analysis of Barack Obama’s birth certificate and other documents has been foundational in several birther lawsuits, such as those by Douglas Vogt and Orly Taitz. Most recently he has weighed in on behalf of Chris Strunk in the ongoing attempt to revive his 2012 suit against the New York Board of elections. (Nothing Irey could say can remedy Stunk’s lack of standing.)

Charles Kerchner has published an email from Irey in which he says [italics replaced by underscores]:

Meanwhile I am leaving the country to reside elsewhere.  I may stay out of the country regardless of the outcome of my efforts … as our national problems are not all caused by this present usurper … that to me seem impossible to solve … mainly due to the tightly controlled media that prevents information such as I have described here from ever reaching you.  Fear is not the reason for my leaving.  It is disgust with the amazing amount of corruption and disregard for our constitution … and the likelihood of serious “fundamental” changes in the future.

One has to note with irony the fact that the “information” that Irey says is suppressed is being discussed right now on this Internet web site.

I had the opportunity to talk to Irey when he appeared on the RC Radio show way back in 2011. I found him a sincere fellow who was totally unable to see straight when it came to looking at evidence about Obama. He said he knew Obama’s birth certificate was a fake before he even looked at it!

I suspect that reinforcement from folks like Strunk, Vogt, Kerchner and perhaps rightwing nut job web sites, trying to outdo each other in exaggeration of their imagined usurpation of the US presidency, has gotten Irey so worked up that he’s actually leaving the country. If he’s leaving for negative reasons, then I feel sorry for him.

One of the great insights in my life is “it’s not about me.” That principle guides me away from making grand symbolic statements, such as leaving when some people don’t act the way I think they should. The proper response is to engage those I disagree with and work to change things. Irey has the right to his politics and his view on how the country ought to run, even though I think he is 100% wrong on some of his conclusions about President Obama. Irey’s leaving the country isn’t going to change anything, and is a futile gesture.

29

Running scared

The Obots are scared spitless, and now they will be attacking like wounded animals.

— Freeangel (September, 2008)


The Obots are running scared.
Shoot on sight.

Geir Smith (December, 2013)


It’s obvious to rational people that liberals are running scared. They now resorting to histrionics like screaming banshees..

cajun_2 (September, 2013)


Could the following be a possible trigger mechanism for Obots running scared and starting to cover up, edit, and scrub?

Charles Kerchner (January, 2014)

Listening to the Mike Volin show last night, and watching his chat room, enforced an observation I made earlier reading Birther Report: there is a lot of fear language in birtherism.

There are two conflicting birther eschatologies. On the one hand, birthers are running scared before the coming end of America as they know it. They believe that the President, with just a whisper to an aide, can have any birther web site shut down (even though they all come back up after they fix their technical problems), and any birther taken into custody and “disappeared” into an internment camp, although none have been. They are convinced that Obama is well on his way towards accomplishing a plan to destroy the country by the end of his term. A vision like that believed, is enough to scare anybody.

On the other hand, the birthers hold a vision of salvation and vindication. Along with vindication, the birthers also paint a pretty scary vision of what it means for them to win, as we see in this comment, again at BR:

It’s not just dr. commie’s articles that we’re interested in preserving for future prosecution: it’s all the comments left by his ass-kissing fellow Obots that need to be cataloged for investigation. For years, these enemies of freedom have done all they could to discredit birtherism and the eligibility movement. They mocked and ridiculed true Americans while they hid behind internet anonymity growing fat on money supplied by Soros and other NWO stooges. However, after the fall-out from Mike Zullo’s revelations in March, we’ll likely see citizen posses assigned to seek out and “interview” these traitors. If some of them don’t survive our questioning, America can count itself the better.

Continue Reading →

Have the birthers figured out that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?

When I started blogging about birthers, the birther story was that Barack Obama’s mother made a quick trip to Kenya, Obama was born there, she hastily returned to Hawaii and registered his birth.

This story circulated for quite some time before there was any reason to believe it  although eventually some reasons (albeit untrue ones) surfaced. The facts are:

  • Obama’s birth certificate says he was born in Honolulu
  • Hawaii didn’t register out-of-state births in 1961
  • Honolulu newspapers listed Obama’s birth in a section of the newspaper that carried information from the health department
  • Obama’s birth certificate shows he was born in a hospital and delivered by a doctor
  • The Hawaii Department of health has repeatedly affirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii and that his birth certificate is legitimate
  • Contemporary written accounts found in State Department files mention him being born in Hawaii
  • Obama’s African relatives say he was born in Hawaii and not in Kenya (Sayid Obama and Sarah Obama).
  • Contemporary statistical reports from the INS show that no American citizen flew from Kenya to the USA that entire year.

While we like to say that birthers are immune to evidence, there is so much evidence that it’s hard to ignore. Have things changed?

Look at birther lawsuits from 2008-9:

  • Berg v. Obama et al. – Attorney Berg alleges birth in Kenya, cites “grandmother tape.”
  • Kerchner v. Obama – Attorney Apuzzo alleges birth in Kenya, cites “grandmother tape.”
  • Keyes v. Obama – Attorney Taitz, alleges birth in Kenya, cites fake Kenyan birth certificate
  • Hollister v. Soetoro – Attorney Berg alleges birth in Kenya, cites “grandmother tape”
  • Rhodes v. MacDonald – Attorney Taitz alleges birth in Kenya

When birther lawsuits started, “born in Kenya” was a mainstay of many of the cases including those prosecuted by Taitz and Apuzzo. Today, while allegations of forged birth certificates abound, I am not seeing affirmative allegations that President Obama was actually born outside the country (Fair v. Obama is the only current case I know that maintains some argument that Obama was born in Kenya). Taitz in Farrar v. Obama in Georgia and Taitz v. Obama in Mississippi avoids mention of a foreign birth. Apuzzo in his recent case of Purpura v. Obama is quick to claim the birth certificate is a fake, but not to offer a claim that Obama is foreign born. New plaintiffs, like Jerry Collette also allege a forged birth certificate from President Obama but stop short of claiming he was born somewhere else and offer no evidence of a foreign birth.

There might be several explanations including that I haven’t read all the cases and what I report isn’t true. It could be that plaintiffs are trying to shift the burden of proof to the President to prove where he was born. Maybe they still believe Obama was born in Kenya, but that they don’t have any evidence of it. It could be that birthers think it’s easier for them to win on the two-parent theory than proving foreign birth.

But is  it possible that birthers have come around to the view that Obama is an American-born socialist, America-hating, fraud, cheat, liar and low-life rather than a foreign one?

Pastor Manning: Cover Sheriff Arpaio with prayer

In a new video, Pastor James David Manning is calling for Christians to “cover Sheriff Arpaio in prayer.”

In the video, Manning makes false statements about the President’s social-security number and then says:

I’m at this moment calling upon all noble citizens and patriots to encamp and encircle Sheriff Joe Arpaio in prayer. … We know how dangerous the world that we now live in is and how exposed Sheriff Joe Arpaio is at present. We need to cover him in prayer. We need to start a prayer chain.

Pastor Manning also says that if Arpaio is not successful in having Obama removed from power, Manning expects to go to jail. We’ll be watching to see how that works out.

As a Christian, I agree with requests to pray for Sheriff Arpaio, and I think we should pray for Pastor Manning, and for Barack Obama too. However, I strongly condemn the lies that Manning promotes under the guise of religion.

The full video runs 18 minutes.

Apuzzo v. Lavelle

The battle in Pennsylvania is joined. On one corner Mario Apuzzo and Karen Kiefer for Kerchner/Laudenslager; and  in the other John P. Lavelle, Jr. for President Obama.

Briefs were flying today from both sides. (Check my Pennsylvania page for updates.)

The President’s side is giving no quarter, opposing Mario Apuzzo’s admission pro hac vice. Jablonski didn’t even challenge Orly Taitz in Georgia! This looks like a no-holds-barred battle with no empty chairs.

Update 3:

I’ve finished reading the Obama memos, and in particular the Motion to Strike and Dismiss. I must say that it looks to me like this case will be dismissed right out of the gate without any necessity to reach the question of President Obama’s actual eligibility.

The cute thing is that Lavelle argued that in Pennsylvania a candidate’s nominating petition can only be challenged by members of his own party. Kerchner is a registered Republican and Laudenslager switched from Republican to Democrat after the deadline for filing a challenge had passed. Oops!

Lavelle declares that challengers totally wrong in their claim that Obama submitted any document in Pennsylvania declaring himself eligible and so the court can as a matter of law cannot find any defect relating to a claim that is is not eligible. Lavelle further argues that since there is no valid allegation of a defect in the nominating papers, the court could only make some general ruling on the candidates eligibility which state courts are not constitutionally able to do, the sole responsibility for presidential eligibility lying with the Congress.

And finally Lavelle argues that Obama is eligible anyway and it was interesting that he cited the very three cases, Ankeny, Farrar and Tisdale, that just this morning I added to the Wikipedia article on the Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution. I was pleased to know that I hadn’t missed something important. I didn’t look to see of the quotations were identical, but they were independently selected.

Two very different ballot challenges in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania attorney Phil Berg and Charles Kerchner (Birthers call him CDR Kerchner) are no strangers to litigation against Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States.

Background

The original Berg v. Obama et al. lawsuit codified much of the thinking of the “not born here” Birthers. I wrote about the foundational nature of this case in: “We all came out of Berg’s suit.” Further, much of what I know about the legal doctrine of standing came from Judge Surrick’s scholarly opinion dismissing the case. In addition to speculating that Obama was born in Kenya, Berg also alleges that President Obama became a citizen of Indonesia as a child and thereby lost his US citizenship (if any).

I wrote about Charles Kerchner’s first lawsuit against Obama in an article Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY. Charles Kerchner, aided by his attorney Mario Apuzzo, also filed a federal lawsuit seeking to unseat the President that included many of the ideas of Phil Berg, but in a much longer form, so long in fact that defense attorney compared responding to it to looking for “gold coins in a bucket of mud.” This lawsuit introduced one new element. While little more than a footnote, the Kerchner case suggested that Barack Obama wasn’t eligible even if he was born here.

In the time since 2009, very little has changed in Phil Berg’s approach, but in the case of Kerchner, the “not born here” aspect has been toned down and the question of Obama’s parentage and the definition of natural born citizen has come to the forefront.

In this, Kerchner may be responding to popular sentiment, particularly in the wake of the release of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate at a White House press conference last April, 20111. Republican leaders, most notably Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, came out and said that people who believed that Barack Obama was born outside the United States or was a Muslim “are just crazy.” On the other hand a scholar, Lawrence Solum, said that while the opposing argument was “much stronger,” still those who believe in a two-parent citizenship qualification “aren’t crazy.”

This brings us to two Pennsylvania ballot challenges filed this month, one from Charles Kerchner and one from Phil Berg.

Continue Reading →