Kerchner v. Obama

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner v Obama

The threat to petitioners’ life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property is actual and concrete rather than merely conjectural or hypothetical. The Declaration of Independence recognizes these rights as “unalienable” and as having been endowed upon an individual by his or her “Creator.” The Constitution recognizes these rights not as being abstract or theoretical rights but rather as concrete and real and needing protection from government abuses. It recognizes these rights as the essence of a person’s being. Petitioners sued Obama after he assumed the great and singular powers of the Executive. Obama was not a mere candidate with no power. Obama has had and continues to have executive and military power to harm the petitioners. He actually exercises those powers on a daily basis. Petitioners cannot rely on Obama, who was born with dual and conflicting allegiances to protect them as a “natural born Citizen” would. The United States Supreme Court has recognized the problems presented by dual nationality and has stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and that a person with such dual nationality “may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952). But because Obama has yet to and because he cannot conclusively prove that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his conflicting natural allegiance and loyalty, plaintiffs are not constitutionally expected to nor do they trust him to protect their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property as would a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who is a “natural born Citizen.” Petitioners must therefore be allowed to challenge Obama in order to protect these concrete rights.

Dems’ Ad Strategy

Ad Strategy Worked: Weak Tea Party Candidate Won Primary

“The most recently filed campaign records from Colorado Freedom Fund indicate that the Democratic Governors Association donated $150,000, while wealthy Colorado philanthropist Pat Stryker gave $108,000. The SEIU Small Donor Committee gave $200,000 and the Public Education Committee, an education union, gave $150,000. Two other groups gave $5,000 each to the committee.

“Democrats spent more money on Maes in two weeks than he raised in his entire campaign,” said Rob Witwer, co-author of “The Blueprint,” a book about the Democrats takeover of Colorado. “They wanted Dan Maes to be the Republican nominee and they got him.”

60, 61, 101 – BIG money game

With nearly $4 million spent so far to defeat these measures, an amount which dwarfs the money for all other political issues and offices in Colorado combined, these measures are the biggest threat to tax and spend liberalism currently on the table.  You know, to a point of certainty, that the legal briefs that will challenge these measures are already written and waiting to be filed, should any of them squeak through the liberal firewall.  And you know, given the composition of the Colorado Supreme Court, that any legal challenge to these measures will be found sufficient and ultimately upheld.  There’s just too much money on the table to enliven the fight.

Still, it’s a fight worth having because it exposes the tax and spend super structure running Colorado.  And there’s no other way we’ll ever even see who runs our government.


According to August 2010 reports, Coloradans for Responsible Reform, an opponent of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61, has reportedly received $4.109 million in campaign contributions and has spent $3.877 million. Their current balance is $231,335.98.[29] Compared to May 2010 reports, supporters reported that they had received $777,000 in campaign donations and a total of $671,190 in the bank.[30] In July 2010, state campaign finance records revealed that opponents received contributions from 36 businesses and 11 business & trade groups.[13]

Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to Coloradans for Responsible Reform:[31][32]

Contributor Amount
National Education Association $400,000
Colorado Contractors Association, Inc. $300,000
Colorado Education Association $250,000
The Colorado Health Foundation $175,000
Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association $150,000

Campaign advertising

  • Opponents purchased $2 million of television air time. Their ad campaign is expected to launch after Labor Day.[13]
  • On September 8, 2010 Coloradans for Responsible Reform launched a one-minute ad in opposition to Prop 101, Amendment 60 and 61. According to reports, the ad calls the three measures “The Ugly Three.” The radio ad ran on 64 stations in 39 cities.[33] The radio ad can be heard here.

Tactics and strategies

  • In May 2010 Coloradans for Responsible Reform launched a website called in order to fight Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61. According to reports, the group has raised approximately $800,000 to fight the measures. The campaign group is supported by Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and others. According to Coloradans for Responsible Reform the proposed measures would make Colorado an “investment-flight state.”[30]
  • On August 14, 2010, opponents of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61 gathered at the Robert Hoag Rawlings Public Library, the headquarters of the Pueblo City-County Library District. According to reports, the crowd consisted of about 50 local politicians, school, library and business leaders.[34]
  • On August 25 opponents hosted a rally at the Pioneers Museum gazebo from 11:30 am to 1:30 pm to explain and distribute information on the potential impact of the three measures. The rally, according to reports, was sponsored by the Citizens for Effective Government and group of businesses and organizations.[35][36][37]
  • On September 27, 2010 opponents met in front of empty seats at Invesco Field to illustrate the 73,000 jobs they argue would be lost should Amendment 60, 61 and Prop 101 be approved by voters.[39]

Other perspectives

    • 2010 Gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo announced in an early September debate that he supported Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61. Tancredo said, “The people of Colorado are not under-taxed; we are over-governed” and added “It’s really a reaction to people being overtaxed and taxed without their permission. The passage of these things will be an indicator that things are coming to a change and we’ll have to deal with it.”[40] However, in late September 2010, Tancredo said he was unsure about the measures.[41]