Home > Birther Blogs > Birthers prepare for dismissal of Kerchner case

Birthers prepare for dismissal of Kerchner case

September 29th, 2009

Birther web site, The Post and Email, appears to be preparing for a dismissal of the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit in an article published yesterday.

Usually the judge throws out a birther lawsuit, and then the birthers attack the judge as a coward, or a traitor, or incompetent.

This time, before Judge Simandle rules in Kerchner v. Obama, the birthers are already attacking, painting him a radical liberal elitist, I presume in preparation for the inevitable dismissal.

Oh, those birthers!

  1. Mike
    September 29th, 2009 at 15:31 | #1

    While you and Apuzzo definitely go at it, I don’t see where either of you have provided any solid proof to either of your arguments.

    Dr. Conspiracy claims that natural born citizen is a terminology directly synonymous with natural born subject. That’s been factually proven otherwise on Donofrio’s blog by COLLEGE KIDS! He doesn’t provide any proof to the contrary, in any documents from that period while they have. It’s purely his opinion and we all know what people think of those who ASSUME.

    On the other hand, neither has Apuzzo. The University who works with Donofrio, have probably been the only ones on the internet who have tackled where the terminology finds any justification and that’s in the revolutionary war period, that I notice Apuzzo only brings that up AFTER they have. It was after all, a bunch of college kids who dug up the foreign influence connection to the whole thing.

    So what are you guys really doing besiding pissing in the wind here? Neither of you have shown any documentation proving anything. If you’re going to say it can be found in Vattel, which is Madison’s blogs findings, you’re going to need proof of how well Vattel was known to that period and just how much of it the framers and the people at that time were familiar with it. You just can’t say they read from it, they understood this or that. You need proof or you’re acting exactly like Dr. Conspiracy is, assuming they understood it and were “familiar” with it without showing any sources for that opinion. Do you have documents from that period showing exactly what they knew? Do you have books from that era where Vattel was deemed the authority in the area you’re giving him credit for? Did you bother asking Madison from his nbc blog? Did you bother asking Donofrio’s University researchers what they have?

    I don’t see any documentation on either of your parts. You spend an awful lot of time disparaging one another and very little time doing any real research of your own – the BOTH of you.

    Dr. Conspiracy holds virtually no proof whatsoever for his opinions. He spends all of his time playing offense to Apuzzo’s sourceless articles while Apuzzo spends his time playing defense to an idiot.

    I suggest the both of you stay away from the internet long enough to do some serious homework instead of making fools of yourselves because kids in college are making serious asses out of the both of you.

    [One wonders how Mike is more competent than anybody else. From his remarks, he appears not to have even read the material he criticizes. Dr. Conspiracy presents well-documented argument and even Apuzzo provides sources, albeit not compelling ones. Obot1]

    • obot1
      September 29th, 2009 at 18:55 | #2

      Donofrio is a lawyer trying to get his guilty client off by misleading the jury with an alternate view of reality. If you think he’s proved anything, that just goes to show you’ve never heard the prosecution’s case (and that you’re gullible as hell). Donofrio has already gone all the way to the Supreme Court AND LOST!

      Conspiracy and Apuzzo are just farting at each other, but the Doctor’s older stuff is pure gold (which you obviously haven’t read).

      Our side is winning somewhere around 60 to nothing in court and all Donofrio’s got is a big Wussy.

      But should you ever become interested in not making a fool of yourself, read what a real lawyer says (Donofrio plays poker for a living):

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html

  2. Mike
    September 29th, 2009 at 21:59 | #3

    You send me a link from a lawyer who used English commentaries as their proof for the meaning behind U.S. law? And Rawle, who was proven to be akin to a Tory and is an absolute nobody in U.S. History??? Are you equally insane and clueless as the rest of these morons?

    [The rest of Mike’s potty-mouthed blather deleted. He thinks he can spout mindless birther stupidity here like the dozens of birther ditto sites. He is mistaken. This is OBOTS.ORG. We don’t suffer birther foolishness.]

    • obot1
      October 2nd, 2009 at 05:58 | #4

      Mike raves: And Rawle, who was proven to be akin to a Tory and is an absolute nobody in U.S. History???

      This is proof of the intellectual bankruptcy of the birther position.

      Rather than address the facts, they use ad hominem attacks to discount legitimate sources. But the attack is mindless fantasy.

      William Rawle was personally appointed by George Washington as United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania (where our nation’s capitol was). He was a founder and first president of the Pennsylvania Historical Society and chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar. In the late 1820s both Princeton and Dartmouth recognized his abilities as a lawyer and judge by conferring on him the degree of Doctor of Laws.

      He was not a Torry; he was a Federalist. He was intimate friends with the folks who wrote the Constitution. Rawle’s View of the Constitution is one of the most important if not the most important commentary on the meaning of the Constitution there is and it has been cited hundreds of times in court decisions.

      It seems to have escaped your delusion fogged brain that many of those guys who wrote the Constitution were, as was Rawle, English-trained lawyers. How do you function in real life with such defects in thinking?

      William Rawle biography: http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1700s/rawle_wm.html

Comments are closed.