Obama’s Straw Man Defense

©2010 drkate

The appalling game-playing by Obama’s lawyers in the Kerchner vs. Obama and Congress appeal,  including the Justice Department, is the kind of behavior that should draw disbarment and criminal penalties. It already makes a mockery of justice and of the Constitution, we know that.  But the case that Obama is ‘fighting’ is not the legal case that’s been brought against him.

Too cool to prove himself, Obama has created and is shadowboxing a straw man eligibility case–one that doesn’t exist.

Straw man. A fallacy in which an opponent’s argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be attacked or refuted.

An alert and astute poster named Fool Me Once, in a post sent to Commander Charles Kerchner,  pointed out that Obama’s legal team is creating the illusion of refuting Kerchner’s argument by misstating  it and then knocking down the fake case…

In this case, the government and Obama absolutely ignored the facts presented in Kerchner’s brief.  Indeed, instead of addressing any of the factual claims, the government ‘makes up’ that there is an issue of standing and jurisdiction, the Constitutional issues presented be damned.

What Kerchner Presented

The basic case against Obama is actually quite straight forward:

  • Obama has not proven conclusively yet that he was born in the United States
  • No state, or federal law enforcement agency, the media, or Congress vetted Obama to assure that he met the Constitutional qualifications for office
  • Notwithstanding where he was born, Obama is not an Article II Natural Born Citizen because the British Nationality Act covered his birth and he therefore is British and his adoption by an Indonesian national would have required his naturalization upon return to the United States.  Obama is at best a dual citizen;
  • Support for the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ as contained in the Constitution is found  historical development, sources and authorities on the Constitution, and that neither the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court, acts of Congress, nor any case law has modified this essential definition.  The Supreme Court has never applied the term ‘natural born citizen’ to anyone who was not “born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
  • Defendants violated plaintiffs’ right to petition for redress under the First Amendment; deprived the plaintiffs of a liberty interest without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment;  deprived plaintiffs of equal protection; and violated plaintiff’s  Constitutional rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Although not required to do so, to these issues of fact Commander Kerchner proposed several solutions, or remedies, for which the court could grant relief, and through which the plaintiff’s claims could be redressed:

  • Compel Obama to engage in discovery with plaintiffs  and the production of documents from Mr. Obama which can be examined by the Court;
  • Define ‘natural born citizen’ which would then allow plaintiffs to submit a motion for summary judgment based on that legal definition;
  • Invite Congress to conduct its own investigation to determine whether Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications for the office, using the Court’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’

The Significance of Timing

The initial filing in this case was filed at 2:50 am on January 20, 2009, after Congress had confirmed the electoral college vote of Obama but just before he became bound to the Constitution through his oath of office.  This brilliant move provides numerous opportunities to crack the usurper’s charade, and frustrates the defense of Obama.  It is also the most significant difference between the Kerchner case and all other cases filed on this subject.

First, the filing date and time occurred after the process had completed its course but before he took the oath of office and became bound to the Constitution. This process includes the election, the vote of the electoral college, and Congress’ action on January 8, 2009.  The significant point here is that Obama as a private citizen, and as the President-elect, still had an affirmative obligation to prove himself constitutionally eligible for the office.

What this timing does is to eliminate Obama and the government’s argument that Obama cannot be touched because he is the ‘de facto office holder’, and therefore ‘presumed eligible’. It also eliminates Congress’ and Dick Cheney’s excuse of not being responsible as they too were under affirmative obligation, under the 20th Amendment, to ensure that Obama met the Constitutional requirements of office.

By failing to do their duty, and failing to respond to petitions to investigate this matter, Congressional officials and VP Cheney are just as responsible for the usurpation as is Obama’s failure to prove himself.  Their actions violated our First, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights, and violated Article II, Article I, and the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution.

After Obama took the oath of office, he became bound to the Constitution.  Rather than this giving him ‘de facto’ room to deceive, he is now even more obligated to show the Country and the world that he is indeed qualified for the office.

Because  this affirmative obligation to the Constitution is the law, and because Congress’ dereliction of duty can be seen as complicit in violation of the Constitution,  Obama and the government had to change the subject.

The Government Misstates the Case

The  lower Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner case, compelling this appeal, and government’s defense of Obama fits the straw man model to a “T”.  Obama is shadowboxing.

Obama’s defense personalizes the case, and  claims a set of issues and facts never stated in the original Kerchner complaint nor in the appeals brief.  The government makes this case about standing and jurisdiction, wholly ignoring the Constitutional issue raised.  Here are the basic examples of this approach:

  • The complaint about Obama’s eligibility is alleged, so the merits do not have to be addressed;
  • Even if the complaint were true, the plaintiffs have no standing and the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case;
  • Even if the complaint were true, the plaintiffs are not injured any more specifically than all other Americans;
  • The plaintiffs ‘feel’ they have a right to know if the CIC is eligible but this does not justify a legal action;
  • Even if the complaint were true, the proper remedy for plaintiffs is with the legislative branch or at the ballot box.
  • Other courts, faced with the same lawsuit have ignored the issue and dismissed it, so should  you.

This is an obtuse and arrogant response to Kerchner’s appeal.  The government doesn’t argue the merits of the case–no information on the 14th amendment, no argument about the case law or supreme court decisions, no argument whatsoever.

Do they know that they can’t win if they take on the facts, and, do they know that we know they can’t?

Instead, the government argues that whatever the facts, the plaintiffs have no standing, no right to bring this action before the court, primarily because they haven’t proven a particularized injury that is different than all Americans. :roll:  Thus the court does not have jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiffs have no standing, and well, the claim is ‘alleged’.

The government argues further that even if the plaintiffs did have standing, and the court had jurisdiction, the plaintiffs have not shown the court how it could remedy the situations raised in the claim.

Meet Obama's Legal Defense

So there you have it, the straw man:

  • he is someone who is complaining because his candidate didn’t win and he should remedy that by talking to Congress or voting
  • he is not injured any more than any other person, and cannot prove that injury anyway
  • ‘every American’ cannot have standing and the court should not take jurisdiction
  • every other case like this has been dismissed for the same reasons

What a ridiculously easy case to keep putting up, complete with all the misleading and off-point case law cited both by the Court and the government’s defense of Obama.  I have every confidence that Attorney Apuzzo has already, and will continue to, demolish Obama’s defense.

Already the standing issue has been addressed quite effectively in the Kerchner appeal, first by noting the inconsistencies in the Court’s opinions and second, through case law, previous opinions of the Supreme Court, and analyzing the application of the writings of Justice Anton Scalia, noting that standing is really a matter of ‘separation of powers’ between the branches of government as well as the proof of a particularized injury.

Apuzzo deliberately notes that this is not a citizen suit and there are no similarities of the Kerchner case with the case law cited by the government; that there are particularized injuries; and that the suit does not involve any possibility of disrupting the ‘separation of powers’ inherent in the Constitution nor does it infringe upon existing responsibilities.

Conclusion

The research, case law, arguments, and presentation of facts in the Kerchner brief is well worth the read, if only to re-familiarize yourself with of the facts and the major elements of the case.

It is still astounding to me that, in face of all the facts of this case, the one element that is needed to move it decisively forward is judicial courage.

May the dreams of General George Washington for our Country remain in the  hearts of the judiciary, and the protection of America and the Constitution foremost in their minds.

63 Responses to “Obama’s Straw Man Defense”


  1. 1 Jan March 16, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Even if the complaint were true, the plaintiffs are not injured any more specifically than all other Americans;

    So, basically, if Obama hurts just one person, that is bad and can be brought to court, but if he hurts all of us that is just fine and we should leave him alone?

    • 2 jtx March 16, 2010 at 8:45 am

      Jan et al:

      Drkate has made a wonderful analysis to the defendants’ (the Flying Monkeys, if you will) response and so has the Initial Appeals Brief in the Kerchner et al action. Sooper job drkate!!!

      To understand just what is being appealed in the Kerchner et al case it would be helpful to read this legal analysis:

      A Federal Judge takes 4 strikes!!!
      and, following that, 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 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!!

    • 3 drkate March 16, 2010 at 10:47 am

      This was one of the most stupid things Obama’s lawyers have argued. Apuzzo raised the exact question you did: so if Obama hurts one person they have standing; but if Obama hurts 320 million people there is no standing.

      They are using this to try to dump the case into the arena of a ‘political question’

  2. 4 Sallyven March 16, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Sounds like we will have no way to fight the unconstitutionality of the Health Care Reform in the Courts either–its mandate makes it affect all Americans equally…

    • 5 drkate March 16, 2010 at 10:49 am

      And current congresses can’t effect future ones. Of course, if we can ever get this obama on his lack of eligibility, then every law he has signed is subject to debate and could be illegal.

      I am waiting for the quo warranto action the minute he signs this bill, asking him by what authority he signed it…as well as the constitutionality of the bill.

    • 6 kj March 16, 2010 at 8:18 pm

      Apparently, not all United States Citizens are equally affected by the health care bill. Medicare Advantage is not to be cut in Florida and the Amish are not required to buy insurance or pay the fine.

  3. 8 terminu March 16, 2010 at 7:39 am

    What obligation do citizens have? To follow a tyrant usurper, or to stand true with the law?

  4. 9 Michelle March 16, 2010 at 7:48 am

    dear drkate
    Suppose all the records re: Obama are revealed by a foreign country (I believe friend and foe alike-have them in spades) blackmail, extortion etc. The lawyers are all NBC as far as I know naturalized citizens would apply also. It is revealed that Obama is not only an NBC, or possibly an illegal alien. The lawyers and citizens of the United States of America are told they do not have standing (as if they do not exist, is that the message they are trying to send?) my question is would this not be the greatest civil rights violation permitted on American soil? The way the courts are treating the Constitution I wonder if any of the Civil Rights Laws apply anymore either.
    Thank you for all your hard work and helping us citizens try to understand these court cases and maneuverings by some faction of our government.

  5. 10 Granite March 16, 2010 at 8:34 am

    If what you said were true, the Chief Justice of the United States would not have sworn in Obama. But the Chief Justice did swear in Obama, and the Congress confirmed his election unanimously.

    That is because he has proven that he was born in Hawaii with the official birth certificate of Hawaii.

    And because every US citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. Only naturalized citizens, who were not born in the USA, are excluded under the Natural Born Citizen clause.

  6. 17 tdr March 16, 2010 at 9:00 am

    I sometimes wonder if Cheney isn’t more responsible. An usurper is by definition obfiscating the legal requirements. It is those who have taken an oath to uphold the constitution that have failed. If I were the defense I would have pleaded that their client in good faith effort stated he meets the constitutional requirements and the process governing the election had the opportunity to demand further discovery and did not, de facto judgement in favor of their “client”. Damages should be sought elsewhere.

    • 18 drkate March 16, 2010 at 9:19 am

      Now that would be an interesting approach. the problem is of course that the ‘good faith’ understanding falls in light of obama being a ‘constitutional law professor’, so in good faith, he lied about it!

  7. 19 EricaThunderpaws March 16, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Dr. Kate,

    Would you mind if I created a trackback link from my blog to this article?

    Thanks.

  8. 21 Katie March 16, 2010 at 9:56 am

    (This is one of the simplest, best statements of what is a Natural Born Citizen that I have ever seen.)

    “So, are you still trying to understand “natural born” citizenship?

    Invariably, in every Grand Jury we have convened (15 now) there is a jury member that raised his hand trying to understand “natural born” citizenship. Every time I end up writing a detailed email to that member explaining why Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born” citizen.

    If you are one of those that don’t understand, I hope this article will clear things up for you.

    By the way, ninety percent of the press, legislators, and judges don’t get it. Actually, the truth be known, they don’t want to get it because the truth suddenly rares its magnificent head and the wind is knocked completely out of their liberal sails.

    From the liberal left:

    I have had people write me and say, “what difference does it make, Obama is a US citizen?”

    I have received 3-page disertations explaining why “natural born” citizenship should be interpreted as “naturalized” or “native born.”

    Then there are those that say, “Obama got elected so NOW he is legally qualified.. get over it.”

    Naturally, most of these Obots that write to me use foul language, call me a “birther” or “wingnut” or simply tell me I am a “racist.”

    The truth of the matter, liberal progressives hate the fact that a conservative citizen does their homework, understands the law and sticks to their guns. Any type of rebuttal or conversation with these progressives (fruitloops) is a PURE WASTE OF TIME.

    But since you are a jury member and one of the good guys, I will take the time to explain to you, as best I can, the “natural born” clause.” Cont’d:

    http://americangrandjury.org/natural-born-every-jury-session-i-get-this

  9. 23 Katie March 16, 2010 at 10:00 am

    From Blogsphere:

    Would we even be in this position if so many gullible or (bribed or threatened) Congressman would have least asked the question .. “Where is the Birth Certificate” .. afterall, any inquiries on Obama’s eligiblity are always flushed by the courts based on the never-before “standing” argument created by his Lawyers.

    Can the American people … many millions of which, who seek proof Obama is indeed eligible not ask the same of him for passing this unprecendented unconstitutional legislation? Granted he is President, but did he actually prove he was eligible in any way,shape or form, other than a photoshopped “Certification of Live Birth”?

    If a Congressman (or several) came out now asking for proof, how would Obama react?

    In any case, it seems only reasonable Americans should be able to ask for “standing”, holding to the same argument defending inquires into eligiblity as for the HC bill.

    http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/Doe-Obama-really-have-standing-to-sign-off-on-the-Obamacare-bill.aspx

  10. 24 ELmo March 16, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Dr.Kate,

    I’m NOT a lawyer so you can check my assertion here, but unless my meager understanding of the law is wrong (which it may be), this is an APPEAL. An APPEAL can ONLY address errors in the original decision(s) by the Court. The Case was dismissed on standing and the “Merits” never got a hearing. Therefore, technically, the “Merits” can NOT be a substantive part of the appeal. What is being appealed is the dismissal of the case on “Standing”. THerefor, it is NOT surprising that Obama’s lawyers didn’t address the MERITS of the case because they are NOT required to (at this stage of the game).
    Please correct me if I’m wrong. Apuzzo’s web site has a very good explanation of the entire case.
    ELmo

    • 25 drkate March 16, 2010 at 10:45 am

      They have to be a substantive part of the appeal, because you can’t play on Obama’s turf here–the case is about eligibility, the DOJ makes this case about standing.

      So in the appeal, the appeal addressed all the reasons why the court’s original decision was wrong. There is nothing ‘new’ in this appeal, except to eviscerate the government’s position on standing.

      There were 5 questions Apuzzo addressed, all of them on whether the initial court erred in its decision on:
      standing
      jurisdiction
      political question
      prudence

      You cannot address these issues in isolation, or in the abstract, which is what DOJ is trying to do. That is why they are fighting a standing case, but the real case is about the constitution.

      There is very little room here for the Court, and every reason they should be courageous and remand the case for consideration. The arguments are too well developed to throw it out, and the standing position was eviscerated by Apuzzo.

  11. 26 Fernley Girl March 16, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Specter Opens Door on White House Felonies

    By Jeffrey Lord on 3.16.10 @ 6:09AM

    “There’s a crime called misprision of a felony. Misprision of a felony is when you don’t report a crime. So you’re getting into pretty deep areas here in these considerations.” — U.S. Senator Arlen Specter on March 12, 2010

    http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/16/specter-opens-door-on-white-ho

  12. 29 old1 March 16, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Presidential eligibility 101
    A simple citizen can not be President. A naturalized citizen can not be President.A nationalized citizen citizen can not be President. A native born citizen can not be President. A person born a British Subject can never ever be President even if they were also born an American citizen. A United States President must be a Natural Born American Citizen. That is born of BLOOD & SOIL. The Blood of both parents being American Citizens at the time of ones birth and that birth on American Soil.
    So we know that, for a fact, BHO was born a British Subject because his father was NEVER an American citizen and was a British Subject under the British Nationality Act of 1948 that says any child born of his British father no matter where that birth takes place will be born a British Subject. So! Being born a British Subject and having only 1 American parent makes 2 reasons why he can never be President. Add to that the fact he has never proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was born in Hawaii and the fact his baby mother was under age at the time of his birth to transfer American Citizenship to her newborn son we have 2 positive reason to prove he is not eligible and 2 more possible situations that also show he is ineligible. Now if he actually became a citizen of Indonesia as his school records show then that is reason #5 why he is ineligible. That’s 5 against his eligibility and not 1 reason supporting he is eligible. Not one hospital in Hawaii has records of his birth. Old Microfiche proves nothing they can be faked easily and the Nordak twins are missing from the plate Obama appears on. That could have been faked. N comes right before O in the alphabet, take out the Nordak twins add Obama and you have the faux fix in. Everything screams something is wrong and nothing says he is a Natural Born American Citizen. There is a slim chance he could be a simple citizen but a simple citizen can never become President. A simple citizen is not a Natural Born American Citizen as is required by Article 2. Section 1. paragraph 5. of our great old never changed or amended Constitution. If you still believe words mean different things and our Constitution is still the law of our land, that man sleeping in our White House is a usurper and those that lied to put him there have committed treason! Test tomorrow at 10am. Study well class your future depends on you passing this test! So does ours!

  13. 30 ELmo March 16, 2010 at 11:00 am

    DrKate,
    Yes, I certainly hope some court, somewhere, gets to the merits. The Idea that NO American has standing because we’ve “ALL been injured alike” should be repulsive to anyone with any knowledge of the Constitution. I was taught that the Constitution was a CONTRACT between the GOvernment and the people – It seems to me on a most basic level, if an idividual resides in the highest office in the land while his/her qualifications are in question, THAT IS just cause to pursue a BREACH OF CONTRACT suit. I hope Kerchner or the Quo Warranto filed by Taitz succeeds in getting to at least the facts that will be revealed by discovery. The voters decided the 2008 election with only a whiff of the facts being hidden by Obama.
    ELmo

  14. 31 drkate March 16, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Why the courts MUST take this case:

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

  15. 32 jtx March 16, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    From Mario Apuzzo’s blog by poster “jayjay”, there is THIS explanatory post over how the DOJ is mis-using the “standing” concept and where that mis-use stems from (SCOTUS Justice Scalia … but read the post for the reasoning).

    =============

    “The defense attorneys are misstating the “standing” concept in any event and they are merely attempting to use the time-honored liberal tactic of taking what they viewed as an “incorrect” conservative opinion in a seminal lawsuit (Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife) with the Court’s opinion written by one of the more detested Justices (Scalia), turning it around (inapplicably) and attempting to beat all conservatives over the head with it to protect their own liberal positions (or, in this case, their ineligible holder of the Oval Office).

    The Lujan case had to do with governmental regulations (e.g. laws, statutes, or Congressional actions) that were being litigated against by a group attempting to overturn a regulatory effect/law passed by Congress.

    Scalia’s opinion – a good one and well-written – applied to the instance then at hand … an effort to overturn a Legislative (and/or Executive) act due to not having (in the words of the opinion) “standing”. Ever since Lujan has been cited by liberalfolk as meaning, in effect, you conservatives can’t sue anyone.

    That’s great – except that’s not the situation in the Kerchner et al action. Here there IS no regulatory or statutory or executive thing to be overturned so it is abject nonsense to claim (as the DOJ has done) that there is no “standing” since what is being complained of is not that which does not exist (the statute or action they pretend exists) but a violation of the Constitition which is (as I’m sure they know but will not admit) supreme to any Legislative or Executive act – nor is there any interpretation of the language of the Constitution required … it very clearly calls out the 3 eligibility requirements.

    So the DOJ is merely trying to use the Arthur Conan Doyle aphorism of “the dog that did not bark” by misapplying the Lujan opinion to Kerchner et all which is about a completely different set of facts and circumstances not addressed by Lujan at all.

    Let’s hope that they are not allowed to misapply the law in this fashion. That’s even in view of the almost equally egregious attempt to present Berg (etc.) as some identical form of pleading when it is not at all. It’s all just liberal misdirection run amok … sort of a soft shoe dance for America-haters.

    ===============

    Hope that helps grasp the mis-use of “standing” since, perhaps, the Flying Monkeys in the DOJ never passed the bar and are trying to “form” a case not in evidence ahywhere but their own fevered brows.

    • 33 ELmo March 18, 2010 at 5:39 pm

      These arguments should all be directed at Simandle (since he’s the one who ruled “In Favor” of the motion to dismiss on standing, and to the 3rd Circuit (in the hope that they will NOT buy the “Standing” argument. To this point you can’t blame Obama’s lawyers for a “Weak” or “Inapplicable” argument, since, to this point they have prevailed.
      ELmo

      • 34 drkate March 18, 2010 at 8:34 pm

        No, I still blame them because their argument is not directed at the case facts at all. I think they are foolish, chicken, and enjoying their manipulation of the legal system.

        They have ‘prevailed’ only due to the lack of courage of Simandle. Hopefully the appeals court will remand it and simandle will have to hold his nose and have a fair hearing on the evidence.

        • 35 ELmo March 19, 2010 at 2:50 pm

          Simandle dismissed the case on “Standing”. Arguments were never made on the “Facts” of the case. DOJ made a motion to dismiss based on “Standing” and other “Non- factual” issues – which the Court (Simandle – He’s the Law, whether we like the decision or not) accepted.

          Defendant would be foolish to raise/ defend issues in Court that are unneccesary to the defense of the Motion before the Court.
          ELmo

        • 36 ELmo March 19, 2010 at 5:18 pm

          Here is a link ‘http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/11914286356.pdf’ To Simandles opinion dismissing the case. As you can see, although the complaint and allegations are rehearsed for the record, arguments were not heard by the Court on the Merits of the complaint.

          Simandle dismissed the case on Standing (and he sites case law in doing it). Any appeal must be based on errors in his ruling and cannot therefore involve the “Merits” of arguments which were NOT heard before him (Simandle). You can’t “Bring In” stuff on appeal, that wasn’t argued already in court.

          At least that’s my limited “Layman’s understanding” of the law.

          CHeck it out – It is NOT heresay – It is the actual opinion.
          ELmo

  16. 37 jtx March 16, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Hmmm!! – speaking of “Flying Monkeys” reminds me that the movie “The Wizard Of Oz” is over 70 years old.

    Today, if Dorothy were to encounter
    people with no brains, no hearts, and no courage -

    She wouldn’t be in Oz … or Kansas -

    She’d be in Congress (or the DOJ) !!!

  17. 38 Papoose March 16, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    Great Post! Great Comments!

    ================================================
    Straw man as Commander-In-Chief

    http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2010/03/16/obama-orders-army-not-to-fly-u-s-flag-in-haiti/

    He’s despicable.

  18. 39 heather March 16, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    How ironic it is that Ginnie Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas came out yesterday with her standing of her own tea party!

    Hmmm–also odd is Justice Roberts speaking last week at a meeting and bringing up the outcome at the State of the Union address when obama jumped all over the SCOTUS.

    Perhaps the Justices maybe are getting themselves ready to defend the United States of American from these criminals.

    Very coincedental………..

    If Pelosi uses the reconsiliation and deem trick to pass this coup, then we will know who is on our side.

    Many, many constitutional attorneys and professors are speaking out about this being completely unconstitutional but without a bill they can’t move forward with law suits. As soon as he signs this bill…………………he is toast!

    And obama knows exactly what he is doing, pass this quick, hurry up so we can fundamentally transform this nation………..and he hopes that the people are still asleep…but to his surprise though we are eyes wide open and seeing right through him and his cohorts. It’s almost like he is thinking, if we pass this I personally will make it law and no one can change it, and the people haven’t got a clue because they are stupid!
    However, Reid wrote in the bill that the republicans can NEVER repeal this bill! Thats the hurry!

  19. 43 tdr March 17, 2010 at 6:21 am

    For those interested in this issue of standing, take a listen to this:

    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc

    Listen to the broadcast for 03/16/2010.

    It’s long but worth the time.

    • 44 tdr March 17, 2010 at 6:35 am

      FYI, I am not advocating any of this discussion, I am not a legal person but I found this position on the 11th amendment interesting given everything that is going on.

      • 45 ELmo March 19, 2010 at 7:59 pm

        This link is very interesting – you’re right, there is a LOT of information to be had there.
        Thanks
        ELmo

  20. 46 susan h March 17, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Another interesting article posted on Post&Email: Talking about the take-over of the democratic party and the real reason why they want to get control of health care – not to reform the system but to have control of 1/6 of our economy, and to control life and death and therefore control the people. Very scary indeed.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/16/the-truth-about-progressives-aka-marxists/

  21. 47 finneganswig March 18, 2010 at 11:35 pm

    Excellent article & analysis, Dr Kate. Very informative. Keep up the great work.

  22. 48 ELmo March 19, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    It is troubling to hear the debate going on over the “Slaughter Rule”. Pelosi’s willingness to wantonly disregard the provisions of Article 1. Sec.7, show her disdain for the “Rule of Law under the Constitution”. The contortions will never pass Constitutional muster before the Supreme Court. ObamaCare (if passed through “reconciliation” and the “Slaughter Rule”) is eventually doomed before the Court.

    Obama’s remark “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate…”, is telling with regard to how seriously (Lightly) he takes his Oath to “..preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It also shows how much integrity he has when just a few days before he had insisted that the “American people are owed an up or down vote on health care”. This all simply re-inforces the idea that the Constitution is “Toilet Paper” as far as Obama is concerned.

    These people are not just a malfeasant group – they are the most disgraceful group that ever occupied their respective offices.

    To steal some phrasing from Lawrence Bielenson (The Treaty Trap),who concluded that all treaties were made to be broken and that they (treaties) offered little protection (or worse) to the guaranteed nation.

    Likewise: If the Constitution can be ignored at will it is useless at best, as a guarantee to those whose rights it purports to protect and “..worse than useless insofar as it engenders a false sense of security..” to the “protected” group.
    ELmo

  23. 49 ELmo March 19, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    If all of this court activity takes as long and is as ineffectual as history has proven it will be, we may see B.Obama resign the Presidency (after losing the 2012 Election), only to be “pardoned” by the ascended President Joe Biden (ala Nixon/Ford) – This may well have been the plan all along.

    If this is done, he will have pulled off the greatest SCAM in the history of the world, cheated justice and there will be nothing to be done about it.
    ELmo

  24. 50 Papoose March 19, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Barack Hussein Obama II is a straw man. He’ll go down in history as did Nero. Tooting his own horn, because all the other horns are worthless and beneath him. He’s only frustrated because he can’t blow and sing at the same time. Except he’d swear on a stack of useless Bibles that he and he alone can do both simultaneously at the exact same nanosecond,

    Bogus POTUS is the answer. Don’t be scared.

  25. 51 terminu May 7, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Tired: You are a simpleton. An idiot.
    Truth be told you don’t care if he’s eligible or not, and everyone knows he’s ineligible.
    Everyone.
    Everyone.
    Get it?
    Only stupid people like you who cannot read a lawbook or the constitution are bamboozled.
    Now go watch Idol.


  1. 1 uberVU - social comments Trackback on March 16, 2010 at 10:54 pm
  2. 2 The Straw Man’s Cloak « drkatesview Trackback on March 17, 2010 at 11:57 pm
  3. 3 pit bull dog bite Trackback on March 19, 2010 at 8:31 am
  4. 4 A Conspiracy of 12 « drkatesview Trackback on April 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm
  5. 5 | NwoDaily.com Trackback on April 14, 2010 at 1:42 pm
  6. 6 Obama on the Rocks « drkatesview Trackback on April 28, 2010 at 1:03 am
  7. 7 “Mal-Bama” « drkatesview Trackback on May 9, 2010 at 11:31 pm
  8. 8 Judges Impeach Themselves « drkatesview Trackback on July 5, 2010 at 12:31 am
  9. 9 Occams Razor and Presidential Eligibility « drkatesview Trackback on September 24, 2010 at 3:04 pm
  10. 10 A Test for the Supremes « drkatesview Trackback on October 1, 2010 at 1:30 am
  11. 11 Removing Obama « drkatesview Trackback on November 6, 2010 at 2:58 pm
  12. 12 Standing and the Constitution « drkatesview Trackback on November 17, 2010 at 1:40 am
Comments are currently closed.



March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

PROTECT OUR LIBERTY HERE!

Get Your Copy at drkatesview@gmail.com

Blog Archive

Just follow copyright law and nobody gets hurt!

The contents of this blog are protected under U.S. Copyright Law, United States Code, Title 17. Requests for use of active and archived articles in this blog must be presented in writing in the comment section, and proper attribution is expected. Thank you in advance.

drkatesview thanks you!

Donate to DrKatesView!

Donate Now!

Since 8/15/09

  • 1,644,332 views

Listen to drkate’s Revolution Radio

RSS Atlas Shrugs

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS American Spectator

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Button 1 120 by 90
Site Build It!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 605 other followers