Turning the Tables

©2010 drkate

Poster from TheBirtherReport.com

The effort to bring attention to a legitimate constitutional question of Presidential eligibility has been fraught with unbelievable distractions, ridiculous denials even from so-called ‘patriots’, and cold stone silence from the judicary, Congress, our friends and family.  The intent is to make us feel like we are isolated and crazy.  We see the sheet of rain that engulfs us; no one else apparently can. We are told to move on, as there is nothing to see there.

It has almost worked.  Almost.

Like a child asking to be caught, Obama has raised the issue once again by whining of the ‘lies’ about his background.  Asked about his faith, he responded with complaints about his birth certificate.  Surely this is a ploy to foster the image of a beleaguered pResident,  but again refocuses the concern to the ‘birth certificate’, not his actual citizenship.  He is trying, through his own reverse pressure, to get the general public to accept the forged certification of live birth as ‘proof’ of his citizenship.

In a twisted way, his lying both about his faith and his background are diversions that work off each other.  When we question his citizenship, he turns it into a question of his faith.  He deflects questions about his muslim faith to the birth certificate.  There is no surprise here….except, that he is running out of plausible deniability.

This kind of distraction will do him more harm than good, as even the most “eligibility” unaware and uninterested people will say, “huh? I asked you about your faith, not your birth certificate…”  :shock:    :grin:

Turning the Tables on Distraction

It is interesting that the intentional distraction of and focus on the ‘birth certificate’ was used to “dumb down” the concept of natural born citizen to that of ‘born in the USA’.  This was forced on the public by ignoring the issue, then constant ridicule, and then the name calling and race baiting.

If we look in another direction, we can realize that Obama is a dual citizen, has admitted so, and now the State Department has confirmed it. With this admission, it becomes possible to ask this question:

Can a dual citizen be President?

Rather than this one:

Where is your birth certificate?

Now the only reason we need the birth certificate is to ascertain whether he has any American citizenship in him at all.  If he was born abroad, he has no American citizenship because his mother was too young to pass it on.  If he was born in the United States, then at least we know the ‘other’ part of his dual citizenship is American.

Asking this question instead of the Birth Certificate question makes all the difference in the world, as it removes the distraction of arguing over a COLB, an electronic image, the forgery, and whether a COLB is ‘sufficient’. It provides a question that anyone can ask without immediately being labeled a birther.  And we still need the BC to ascertain whether Obama is American or simply a foreigner hiding  in the White House.

With regard to dual citizenship and the Presidency, the only information written on that subject is contained in the superb documentation of the Kerchner v.  Obama case.  That historic information indicates clearly that divided loyalties are not accepted for the position of President.  If the courts or Congress are to look for guidance, this is where they will land.  Thank you, Commander Kerchner and Attorney Apuzzo.

We know he is British, Kenyan, and most likely Indonesian.  Now he’d better show his papers as we don’t know if he is American.

We are at a crossroads, and everyone is telling us what to think.  For me, this is THE defining issue of this moment–nothing else can be done to right the wrong direction of this country without outing and removing the usurper.

I am not backing down.

81 Responses to “Turning the Tables”


  1. 1 allahallahoxenfree August 31, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    When this joker is pulled out and finally exposed to the public, the whole progressive/marxist.democrat house of cards will fall. The old media needs to be boycotted into extinction and yes that includes Foxnews.

    It is mind boggling to attempt to wrap one’s mind around the universal “lack of interest” in this obvious deficiency in the Delicate Genius’ eligibility. The lack of meeting the very basic historic and judicial definition of the term Natural Born Citizen. I want to believe it is merely the culmination of a couple of generations of propaganda and brainwashing by our education system and media that has produced so many incurious useful idiots. But I fear there is something more to it, several “wizards” behind the curtain. Soros? any combination of international bankers? The Russians? The Europeans? Who would benefit most from this economic kamikaze mission these treasonous morons have set us on? Where does the truth lie? I doubt we’ll ever get to the bottom of it.

    I hope enough of our citizens have awoken to recognize the true nature of this Progressive, authoritarian, politically correct, islam appeasing, one world government beast. We need to drive the parasitic “public servants” from Washington and several state capitols to re-establish the very simple brilliance of our constitution. That should include congressional term limits, simplifying our laws and codes, including a flat tax or the Fairtax, abolishing or severely truncating the EPA, Edu Dept, Interior and several other entities and a FULL and COMPLETE audit of the Federal Reserve. I almost forgot, a complete repeal of everything this marxist usurper has touched including Obamacare and the two useful idiots he appointed to the Supreme Court.

    • 2 drkate August 31, 2010 at 9:16 pm

      Very well said. I believe he is a tool of the new world order ant the money men…and they erred on this one. They thought we Americans would not notice.

  2. 3 Stock August 31, 2010 at 9:22 pm

    I think it is much less sinister-but none the less Treason perpetrated with typical Washington elite liberal cover-up-with all the slime balls cooperating in the scheme as it goes along. The Dems wanted some miracle-perfect candidate-they put him up-fixed the Caucus-then oops-a small problem came up-Nancy fixes some documents-somebody photoshops a BC-they make the “natural born” into “native born” and then the SR511 sham and wheel a sweet deal with McCain. Then everybody else just doesnt want to look stupid so they go along to get along. A little fear a little greed and you there you have it. None the less-this is the way to take out the entire program-focus-it is working-when it cracks everything goes-bye bye Obcare! I couldnt believe it-when he answered B. Williams question about his religion with his Birth Cert rant-shows he is absolutely a lyin sack-I wonder if the spirits in the White House are starting to cause a little uproar-maybe thats why hes taking so many vacations. Gee he might have a little problem getting his exorcism granted. Picture this sucker running out of the WH in his shorts in the middle of the night! Feet dont fail me now-

    • 4 drkate August 31, 2010 at 9:28 pm

      roflmao

    • 5 ladysforest September 2, 2010 at 11:17 pm

      “A little fear, a little greed and there you have it”

      Perfectly said.

    • 6 MeJane September 9, 2010 at 12:37 am

      I am a little late in chiming in here but better late than never. The Birth Certificate has always been a ploy, a deflection, and a magician’s trick of “Look over there”. Also a set up to scream “conspiracy theory” thus setting up the road to ridicule we have all been on with his eligibility issue. His dual citizenship which he has always admitted and was on his own website is his way of hiding in plain site. Making him SEEM innocent of any wrongdoing. His dual citizenship and the COLB are the only things that Obama has disclosed, and that is very telling indeed. He hides his true Birth Certificate but readily discloses what truly makes him ineligible for all to see.

      If we examine the dual citizenship argument, one of the best one’s that I have found is in Article II itself, the Grandfather Clause. We only need to look to our past history to find the true answer as to whether or not a dual citizen is eligible to be President. Has there ever been any dual citizen Presidents in our past?? The answer is yes, there have been. Many of the Founding Presidents had dual citizenship. The framers of the constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British citizens and that’s why the framers declared that, while they were citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born citizens”. Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in article 2, section 1, clause 5 of the constitution:

      No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of president;

      The framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be president, but they didn’t want future generations to be governed by a Commander in Chief who had split loyalty to another country. The framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of foreign powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the framers and colonists fought so hard in the American revolution to be free of.

      But nobody alive today can claim Presidential eligibility under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted. The framers of the Constitution distinguished between “natural born citizens” and all other “citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th amendment only confers the title of “citizen”, not “natural born citizen”. The framers were citizens, but they weren’t natural born citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born citizens on themselves in the Constitution and added the Grandfather Clause as an exclusion for themselves and Revolutionary patriots. The Grandfather Clause would have no reason to be there at all otherwise, as that is the only clause that Constitutionally allows just a “citizen” to be President.

      Since the framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth (dual citizens) then Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States and is ineligible for the office.

  3. 9 mamacooks August 31, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    Dr Kate,
    Well said! I don’t know if you saw this or not. It’s a very good description on Natural Born Citizen from 1897! Original Intent! Hope it is helpful. Blessings.

    http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/08/dr-david-ramsay-defined-natural-born.html

    • 10 drkate August 31, 2010 at 10:51 pm

      Thanks mamacooks! I decided to link the story directly into the post above.

      When this question gets addressed the only documented source of information is Mario Apuzzo, and jefferson’s rebels, etc, as they found the textbooks and references that spell it out.

      I pray critical mass is reached soon for our beloved America.

      • 11 Troy August 31, 2010 at 11:26 pm

        Though he can be difficult to deal with, we also owe a world of gratitude to Leo C. Donofrio…He was the first to begin to educate “we the people” on the natural born citizen issue and it’s original intent…Thanks Leo!

  4. 15 Jan August 31, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    We have all the proof we need, maybe if we take over the house and senate we will be able to finally put obat in jail and undo everything he has done.
    Since the courts feel it is up to Congress to file charges and up to senate to agree.

    • 16 jane September 1, 2010 at 4:11 pm

      Vattel deems McCain a NBC because his father was active duty “born abroad of parents in service of country”.
      That gets McCain off the repay-campaign-funds hook.
      They can go after Obama CLEANLY.

  5. 17 Quantum Leap August 31, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    Put a tiger in your tank. :wink:

    This just in from Team Sarah:

    BREAKING NEWS:

    Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent, has conceded to Joe Miller for the Alaska Senate seat!

    Find out more about commonsense conservative Joe Miller HERE:

    http://joemiller.us/

    http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/joe-miller-is-ready-to-win-for-alaska/420981958434

  6. 22 Quantum Leap September 1, 2010 at 10:58 am

    This is a great way to start my day…@ 8:58am

    Yahoo story

    Sen. Murkowski’s defeat marks major tea party win

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Backed by the Tea Party Express and Sarah Palin, a little-known conservative lawyer from Alaska became the latest newcomer to the national political stage to take down an incumbent in 2010.

    In arguably the biggest political upset of the year, Joe Miller claimed the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate when incumbent GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski conceded Tuesday evening.

    Miller’s win was a major victory for the tea party movement and marked the first time it had defeated a sitting senator in a primary.

    Tea partiers had knocked off Utah Sen. Bob Bennett at a state convention in May, and emboldened organizers now have their sights set on Delaware, where they are backing Christine O’Donnell against the more moderate Rep. Mike Castle in the GOP Senate primary.

    Miller, 43, told The Associated Press by phone late Tuesday that he’ll campaign this fall on transferring power and control over resources from the federal government to Alaska and the other 49 states.

    The state has long been heavily reliant on federal money to run — a legacy largely carved out by former Sen. Ted Stevens before his death in an August plane crash.

    But the government’s impending financial crisis will eventually force a reduction in funding to the state, Miller said by phone from Fairbanks.

    “We have to be prepared for that, and the way to do it, of course, is to progressionally transfer holdings of the federal government to us,” he said. “And of course, also by reducing federal regulatory burdens over the lands that we do control so that we can develop them more freely and more economically.”

    Murkowski is the third senator to lose this year amid deep dissatisfaction with the Washington establishment. Bennett and Arlen Specter, D-Pa., were the others.

    She trailed Miller — an Ivy League-educated lawyer, West Point graduate and decorated Gulf War veteran

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

  7. 23 Rich T September 1, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    Straight from the State Dept website. Which should be PoS instead of DoS.

    The below quote is on the Pos site as their banner. They want you to think it’s from the Constitution.

    “The common law is the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people.”

    http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2010/08/31/obama-dept-of-justice-rips-stars-and-stripes-from-site-header/

    Catchy, huh? Just one tiny little (too small to be relevant obviously) point — the quote is from C. Wilfred Jenks, who in the 1930’s was a leading proponent of the “international law” movement, which had as its goal to impose a global common law and which backed ‘global workers’ rights.’

    They have also scrubbed the US flag from it and it now boasts a black background. Yes Sir…symbolism at its best…or worst.

  8. 24 Heather September 1, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Excellent reading and posting!

  9. 25 Heather September 1, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Awesome video on sharia law—–I truly don’t believe that GWB understood Islam and Sharia law when he made those statements time and again about Islam being a religion of peace.

    http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/08/three-things-about-islam.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewZeal+%28New+Zeal+Blog%29

  10. 27 Rich T September 1, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Just read an interesting fact about the GZ mosque at Investors Daily website in relationhip with the Cordoba name.

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=545593

    Cordoba became the seat of the Caliphate of Iberia and North Africa, as well as the namesake of the Cordoba Initiative — the stated goal of which is to erect a mosque at the site of the first Islamic victory in conquering and subjugating America, on the 1,300th (not the 1,299th or 1,301st) anniversary of the conquest of Spain and the 10th anniversary of the great Islamic triumph of 9/11.

    Once again we see them trying to show they are conquering us and installing a caliphate, which I would presum to be the pig loving imim who is jet-setting around the world on my dime.

  11. 28 Rich T September 1, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    OT but extrememly interesting and I wonder in teh jack ass in charge will try to propagandize it.

    Thorium: The Magic Bullet That Could Energize The World

    http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/09/magic-bullet-that-could-energize-world.html

    Dr Rubbia says a tonne of the silvery metal – named after the Norse god of thunder, who also gave us Thor’s day or Thursday – produces as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal. A mere fistful would light London for a week.

    Thorium eats its own hazardous waste. It can even scavenge the plutonium left by uranium reactors, acting as an eco-cleaner. “It’s the Big One,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA rocket engineer and now chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering.

    • 29 drkate September 1, 2010 at 7:44 pm

      Thorium itself is highly radioactive.

      There are other high energy processes that are better and less toxic–cavitation, for example. Harness that and we are good to go

    • 31 drkate September 1, 2010 at 7:48 pm

      They so need to point out he is a ‘dual citizen’ …see how the Birth Certificate issue was a distraction? NO one touches it, and, it was the wrong question!!!

    • 32 Quantum Leap September 1, 2010 at 11:19 pm

      Wow. He (Anthony)is spot on. Hey Patriots we are making head way and things are getting reported. Here are some of the things he saying.

      Problems regarding Presidential high crimes and misdemeanors go far beyond the White House, however. Congress walks in tandem with this President’s penchant for disregarding our nation’s laws and its Constitution.

      A clear example of Congress as an accessory to the crimes is a little-reported covert act which made the ominous ‘cap and trade’ energy tax on Americans a reality without a vote.

      Many conservative political observers have long warned about actions such as these by Obama and Congress, but mainly with regard to the upcoming ‘lame duck session’ between November and January before the new Congress can be seated.

      Cap and trade was one of the bills the Left promised to pass before they left office.

      Now, however, it appears they have already done so, and that without debate or vote. Although it appears that 65 BILLION dollars have already been transfered to an entity that profits from ‘capping’ greenhouse gases in the Northeast, citizens still have a window of opportunity to stop it from being implemented across the country–IF they bombard Congress with protests over cap and trade.

      Such legislation would add an extra $2400 to $5000 dollars in energy costs PER YEAR PER HOUSEHOLD in America, placing yet another unconscionable financial burden on families who are still suffering from the worst economic decline since the Great Depression.

      The fact that these oppressive measures are being forced on the American public by elected co-conspirators in the economic collapse, such as Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, and many others who gave their nod to the dubious government policy dating all the way back to the mid-1990s to essentially turn Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into welfare agencies, only underscores the corruption that is entrenched in Washington in Congress AND the White House.

      Thus, not only is it clear that Obama should be impeached and removed from office, but his enablers in Congress, who have controlled the legislative branch since 2006, must be ousted in November.

      Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere

  12. 33 Rich T September 1, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    A great piece from Canada Free Press on that islam is not just a religion but a government.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27211

    Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law
    By JR Dieckmann Wednesday, September 1, 2010
    The time has come to question if Islam is protected under our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Yes, everyone in America has the right to freedom of religion, but Islam is not a religion. Religious faith is only a part of Islam. The rest is a socially engineered society with its own laws and customs that seriously conflict with American law.

  13. 35 Katie September 1, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    “With this admission, it becomes possible to ask this question:

    Can a dual citizen be President?”

    Dr. Kate – you nailed it! I personally questioned a candidate for Secretary of State for his definition of a natural born citizen. He replied with some blather about born in the US. I corrected him – blood and dirt.

    Then I took another route and asked him how a dual citizen could be eligible to be on the ballot for president and commander-in-chief?

    He literally went pale, practically tripped over his own feet to run away and suddenly found another voter’s hand to shake. I almost laughed – except for the seriousness of the revelation.

    • 36 drkate September 1, 2010 at 9:53 pm

      Thank you. I think its a startling question that will have to be addressed. As long as they have ‘nbc’ to define, theyt can say and delay anything. Not this one. Even wiki says ‘no’

  14. 38 Quantum Leap September 1, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    I hate to say it but it looks like he got it up the rear and can bearly stand to sit on the seat. I’m prolly right.

  15. 43 Heather September 1, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    Barry on the “girlie” bike, with the “girlie” helmit…..just who is he trying to impress? And to top it off, get a load of the position of his knees! lmao!!! And this is the POTUS!

  16. 44 Quantum Leap September 1, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Pardon my french but his manhole and his manboobs got him sitting like that on his kid’s bike. Or is it his bike? Or his wife of convenience’s bike. The handlebars and pedals fit him. Must be his bike. Stupid closet case phoney. :roll: Naw. Wife’s bike. The female wife. :???:

  17. 45 Quantum Leap September 1, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    Maybe Papoose knows. Papoose. Is it fugly flo’s bike? Wouldn’t her’s have a basket on it? :wink: My bad. :mrgreen:

  18. 46 Quantum Leap September 1, 2010 at 11:46 pm

    Oh and @Rich T…TV just said Muslims are complaining it’s inhumane and unethical to not allow them to build in NYC.

    When the county denies permits to build, there is nothing inhumane or unethical about it. It’s business.

    It’s not a religion and people are aware of that.:evil:

  19. 47 Quantum Leap September 1, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    Now there is a commercial on for preparation H. Syncronicity much? :cool:

  20. 49 Quantum Leap September 1, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    Anyhow. Alpha male Allen West for president 2010.

  21. 50 Troy September 1, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    The Post and Email interviews our own Dr. Kate! :D

    My hat is off to you Doc!
    ++++++++++++++++++
    The Usurpathon goes to D.C. to stop the treason

    “WE NEED TO FOCUS LIKE A LASER ON THE ELIGIBILITY ISSUE”
    by Sharon Rondeau

    (Sept. 2, 2010) — Dr. Kate holds a Bachelor’s degree from Smith College in geology and a doctorate in hydrology from the University of Arizona. She has worked in the field of Indian water rights for the last 30 years. A professional resource manager with substantial legal training, Dr. Kate describes the laws governing Indian water rights as “very complex.” Her role has been to find solutions to water resource problems for Native Americans.

    continued here: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/01/the-usurpathon-goes-to-d-c-to-stop-the-treason/

    • 51 Carol September 3, 2010 at 7:10 pm

      Hi Dr. Kate! I would like to communicate to you another approach to the eligibility issue that is coming to fruition shortly, however we can use your help! I know you will be in DC this week by reading your interview with Sharon. Is this a private email account?

      I look forward to your response!

      Carol

  22. 52 drkate September 2, 2010 at 12:17 am

    Critical Mass on Eligibility

  23. 53 Troy September 2, 2010 at 12:38 am

    Just a reminder to everyone – One of the greatest heroes ever known in the history of this country, LTC Lakin, has a hearing scheduled for tomorrow for his motion to be granted discovery in the court martial case concerning the usurper’s ineligibility….I don’t use the term hero lightly…Lakin ranks right up there with the likes of General George Washington….LTC Terry Lakin is putting his life on the line in order to save our country from the communist take over that has currently besieged “we the people”….The man is willing to face years of hard labor in prison to protect mine and your freedoms….Glen Beck keeps asking, “Where are the modern day Washingtons and Jeffersons?”….Hey Glen, he is right in front of you and you refuse to acknowledge him!!!….His name is Leuitenant Colnel Terrance Lakin and he is trying to, nearly single handedly, save the United States of America from total destruction from within….Glen Beck, you are a jackass for not getting behind this great and fearless leader of men/women – this great patriot.

    Let us all pray for Terry Lakin’s life and freedom….Let us all pray for the panel of military judges, that they may be blessed with the wisdom to grant America’s new hero, Terry Lakin, full discovery for all of the communist usurper’s documents that have been hidden from “we the people”.

    If LTC Lakin is railroaded and imprisoned then we will all have a new mission to get him out of there as quickly as possible…We will need to demand that the new president, who will replace the usurper in 2012 and upon his/her first day in office, grant a full pardon to Lakin…We will need to demand that Lakin’s record of service be completely expunged of any blemishes….And we shall urge the new CIC to bestow the Congressional Medal of Honor upon LTC Lakin…We shall urge the new president to sign an immediate Executive Order declaring Barack Hussein Obama II an illegal usurper of the office of President of the United States of America and an immediate nullification of every single action of which required a presidential signature – a reversal of everything that Barry has destroyed.

    Let us pray that on the day of September second in the year of two thousand and ten that God may show mercy on the welfare of LTC Lakin and on “We the People” of the United States of America.

  24. 56 Troy September 2, 2010 at 2:09 am

    Officer challenging Obama’s credentials on Farber show
    Interview scheduled day after Army hearing on evidence of president’s eligibility
    ——————————————————————————–
    Posted: September 01, 2010
    10:19 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    Just one day after a hearing in the military court system that is to focus on President Obama’s evidence of being eligible for the Oval Office, the officer making the challenge to the president, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, is scheduled to be on the Barry Farber show on CRN Talk to discuss his concerns about the nation’s Constitution.

    Lakin will be accompanied by his civilian attorney, Paul Jensen, who has been working on Lakin’s case under the auspices of the the American Patriot Foundation, which is generating support for Lakin as his trial on Oct. 13-15 approaches.

    In April, Farber discussed the case with longtime officer Grodon Smith:

    Word of the scheduled interview comes just one day after a retired general who commanded crews in charge of nuclear weapons charged that Obama’s records are critical to the future of the U.S.

    (Story continues below)

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=198253

  25. 58 Quantum Leap September 2, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Gee drkate, you sure get around. You have lived all over the nation.

    http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdkUIr4z8z

  26. 60 ms. helga September 2, 2010 at 7:57 am

    “USURPERVILLE”

  27. 62 Durus September 2, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Got bumper stickers for “Born a Brit, Not legit!”?

  28. 63 sk1951 September 2, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    His dad is not Amarican. End of eligibility question. But this is much worse to me.

    OBAMA IN HIS WORDS…IS MUSLIM
    In this you tube video we hear in Osama’s own words that he is Muslim. He claims we “ARE NOT” a Christian nation and that Islam is a part of America.
    Barack Obama “I am a Muslim”
    Video:

    His Islamic law dictates for him to lie to America. He is in good graces with Islam.

    What I disapprove of is having a spy in the office with the highest security rating America has. I object to an enemy that has openly sworn to the destruction of the West and all infidel devils…having a leader masquerading as POTUS. This is a National Security obligation that congress has usurped for it’s own socialistic NWO agenda. This anti American behavior by the defacto government can no longer be tolerated by anyone that truly is a Constitutional American patriot. PC arguments are smoke screens for those attempting to bring down America.

  29. 64 sk1951 September 2, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    For me the voter fraud stands out as the most legitimate of all complaints. Pelosi and Obama should easily stand trial for this treason. If not for the voter fraud this would not be an issue and would have stopped all this in its tracks. Even the Obots can’t argue this one.

    Be sure to read exibits 6 and 7.

    http://americangrandjury.org/public/

  30. 65 Dora September 2, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    Judge denies Lakin’s request for obama’s school records:

    http://www.news25.us/Global/story.asp?S=13091049

    Do we have any real judges in this country?

    Damn!

  31. 66 Jan September 3, 2010 at 12:38 am

    Listening to blogtalk radio tonight and in the chat someone said that Darryl Issa has the right to request a one on one meeting with one of the SCOTUS judges. The chatter said to contact Issa’s office, preferably in writing or e-mail and pressure him to get charges filed against obat

  32. 67 John September 3, 2010 at 11:01 am

    Wow, I just became aware of your work when visiting the Post and Email News and reading your interview. I love your thinking outside the box and focusing attention on new steps to force Obama prove his eligibility or discover unlawful acts that will require him to resign. And to focus attention on Pelosi who allowed the false certification. I recall that VP Agnew was forced to resign as VP when a law professor and his students helped citizens from MD file a false claims act charge against Agnew for actions when he was a governor – he attempted to quash the lawsuit, but it prevailed and forced his resignation. Surely Obama must have a history of illegal acts from his days in Chicago.

  33. 68 John September 3, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Dr. Kate I suggest that you look into becoming a speaker on college campuses. Speakers are paid well which provides money to further amplify your message, students pay fees every semester and the money is there often for the asking. You will be get opposing students – faculty and press coverage. While in graduate school in the middle 70’s I had my school sponsor the American Indian Movement two consecutive years, the speaker was paid $2,500 plus travel expenses for each visit and he received contributions from those attending! I packed the auditorium each time and had visitors from the NJ surrounding states. Colleges and universities have many resources including student volunteers and we have a right to them not just the Left. Parents should be encouraging their children attending colleges and universities to seek this speaker funding to invite you and others like Mario Apuzzo.

  34. 69 btw September 3, 2010 at 10:59 pm

    Dr. Kate,

    I left the important information here

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/drkates-platoon-takes-the-hill/#comment-9828

    and expected your answer on my email address (or under that comment). Alas, it didn’t happen.

    Please read that my comment (I’ll not repeat it here) and all info in the link(s). To its content i can add the following: I traveled to Washington DC on “Restoring Honor” Event 08-28-2010 and gave away 800+ those flyers “To Fellow American Citizen!” mentioned in the link above. In addition to the publication (mentioned in the link above) “The Constitutional problem of Obama’s Ineligibility (the proof and a solution /in current circumstances/).”

    http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/the-constitutional-problem-of

    (you’ll easy find the flyer “To Fellow American Citizen!” that is attached to this link (at the very bottom of the text). It’s ready for printing.)

    I wrote also “Restoring Honor – spread the truth (despite the mainstream media) about the Constitutional problem of Obama’s Ineligibility (regardless of his birthplace) through/by WE THE PEOPLE!”

    http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/restoring-honor-spread-the

    and (earlier) “One more time: It doesn’t matter where Obama was born! He isn’t eligible to be POTUS according to the Constitution!”

    http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/one-more-time-it-doesnt-matter

    I believe everything is clear from those publications (including that flyer “To Fellow American Citizen!” – the “tool” for distributing information about The Constitutional Problem of Obama’s Ineligibility to be POTUS and a solution…). So my attendance of your event (Sep 06 – 09, 2010) isn’t necessary (to be honest I feel tired from the previous trip). If you agree with that flyer, your people could print and distribute those flyers.

    I’d strongly appreciate your answer on this information.

    Thanks!

    • 70 btw September 4, 2010 at 11:46 pm

      Dr. Kate,

      I see that at last my comment went through moderation.

      Would you please comment on it (here or on my email address)?

      • 71 drkate September 5, 2010 at 12:18 am

        BTW, thank you very much for this information! These are excellent links. I will reply a little more in detail later

        • 72 btw September 5, 2010 at 10:26 pm

          Dr. Kate,

          Now I see that the initial contact had a place. Thanks a lot! I understand that the detailed answer will take a time.

          But at this time may I ask you that those flyers “To Fellow American Citizen!” were printed by your people and distributed at your event Sep 6-9, 2010? Is it possible to give one flyer to Dr. Manning? I’d be obliged endlessly.

          Today I placed a comment

          http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/lt-co-lakins-lawsuit-dismissed?commentId=2600775%3AComment%3A2564547

          at the discussion on Resistnet.com “LT. CO. LAKIN’S LAWSUIT DISMISSED BECAUSE “PROOF WOULD BE EMBARRASSING” FOR OBAMA” where is embedded the video “Restoring Honor To Terry Lakin: Glenn Beck” from Dr. Manning. You can see that video about Glenn Beck’s “picnic” 08-28-2010 (according to the definition by Dr. Manning) at the previous link (at the top of the page) or here:

          It would be absolutely great if you and Dr. Manning took a look at that my comment (Dr. Kate and Dr. Manning are mentioned there)! That comment is an appeal to everybody to ACT (not only to express their just feelings) – distribute widely across the Land by any means those flyers “To Fellow American Citizen!” in order to let know a considerable majority of the whole population about the Constitutional Problem of Obama’s Ineligibility (regardless of his birthplace) for a proper voting in 2010 (and of course in 2012). I understand that my voice is absolutely not enough to convince them to ACT. It’s necessary (for the sake of this country) that known and famous persons, like Dr. Kate and Dr. Manning, gave their “blessings” on such ACTIONS.

          P.S. I’m using the term “dual allegiance at birth” with reference to Obama. I met on the Internet the term “dual citizenship at birth” regarding him. I think it’s not right. It means admitting that he (besides British Citizenship) had also American Citizenship at birth. It’s not so according to the 14th Amendment even in a doubtful case that he was born in the US (???). Even in such a case he additionally had to be “subject jurisdiction thereof” – it means “complete jurisdiction” – in order to be “citizen at birth”. We know very well that this isn’t a case (because of his British father). So he absolutely couldn’t have “dual citizenship at birth” (only “dual allegiance at birth”). All of this is considered in links that I submitted to you earlier.

  35. 73 Joe The Blogger September 4, 2010 at 7:45 am

    CRITICAL MASS ON INELIGIBILITY OF OBAMA

    We’re getting close. You can bring it much closer. One more sustained push could set off the chain reaction.

    Make then hear.
    Make them listen.
    Make them realize that this is going to happen and that continued resistence is futile and against their own long-term self-interest.

  36. 75 Rich T September 4, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Just saw this over at Atlas Shruggs. Would not surprise me if he did do this after his statemenet of “music to my ears” for the call to prayer of muslims.

    Once again their is the sunni reference that Lame Cherry enlightened us on obama and why he is a sunni.

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/09/muslim-ideological-council-obama-to-be-named-caliph-of-muslims-mullah-barack-hussain-obama-allama-ob.html

    Islamabad, Sep 2 (PTI) A Pakistani minister wants US President Barack Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero in New York and become the “Amir-ul-Momineen” or Caliph of Muslims.

    Minister of State for Industries Ayatullah Durrani, who belongs to the ruling Pakistan People”s Party, said the upcoming Eid-ul-Fitr festival, expected to be observed on September 11, would be a “golden opportunity” for Obama to offer Eid prayers and declare himself the leader of all Muslims.

    “In this way, all the problems of the Muslim world would be solved,” Durrani told The Nation newspaper.

    “Mullah Barack Hussain Obama” or “Allama Obama”

    He said: “The time is approaching fast. Barack Hussain Obama must act now. This is a golden opportunity, Muslims badly need it.”
    Obama”s elevation to the Islamic Caliphate would be the “key to success, he claimed but did not offer any explanation for his remarks.

  37. 76 Jan September 4, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    Ltc. Terry Lakin is under going court martial proceedings for challenging Obama/Soetoro’s eligibility.

    The judge ruled a couple of days ago that he will not be allowed discovery regarding any documents regarding the criminal in the White House and his citizenship status.

    I went over to the WH web site and yes, how timely, a new executive order dealing with court martial.

    Sent to me:

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/ltc-terry-lakin-denied-discovery-to.html

    “President Obama signed an Executive Order promulgating the 2010 changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial on August 31, 2010.

    “The covering document is on the White House website, but the text of the changes is still neither there nor on the Federal Register and DoD websites as of 10:45 a.m., Sept. 2, 2010. The amendments take effect on September 30, 2010″

    SOURCE:

    http://www.nimjblog.org/2010/09/2010-changes-to-manual-for-courts.html

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/31/executive-order-2010-amendments-manual-courts-martial

    The White House
    Office of the Press Secretary
    For Immediate Release
    August 31, 2010

    Executive Order– 2010 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 801-946), and in order to prescribe amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United
    States, prescribed by Executive Order 12473 of April 13, 1984, as amended, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1. Parts II and IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, are amended as described in the Annex attached and made a part of this order.

    Sec. 2. These amendments shall take effect 30 days from the date of this order.

    (a) Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to make punishable any act done or omitted prior to the effective date of this order that was not punishable when done or omitted.

    (b) Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to invalidate any nonjudicial punishment proceedings, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial in which arraignment occurred, or other action begun prior to the effective date of this order, and any such nonjudicial punishment,
    restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial, or other action may proceed in the same manner and with the same effect as if these amendments had not been prescribed.

    BARACK OBAMA
    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    August 31, 2010

    Of course, we would not be going through this mess had just one real man stood up January 9, 2009, and gave objection to accepting the electoral college vote to seal Obama/Soetoro’s fraud as the newly minted president.

    Not one man in the U.S. Congress had the courage to stand for the truth. That’s why I will not vote for ANY incumbent in Congress for ANY office.

    Rep. Bilbray told his constituents the reason he couldn’t find the stones to make the objection is because “I would have been laughed at.” There’s a good reason to be a coward.

    Recall the usurper’s very first EO was January 21, 2009 regarding
    Presidential Records and access:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-records

  38. 77 Jan September 5, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    I have a really long post from Dr. Charles Kolb stating that every member of Congress was sent documents on Sept. 5th. Go to Post & Email to see the documents. I think it is too long to post here

  39. 78 Jan September 6, 2010 at 12:03 am

    WOW, just finished going over the documents at Post & email. Lucas Smith sent every person in Congress/Senate via certified mail documents, including the Kenya birth certificate. It takes some time to download the copies of the letters so be patient. The documents were mailed today. The timing couldn’t be more perfect. Dr. Kate, the group will be able to go to each Congress person or senator and ask what they plan to do with the information they have received.
    This could be the power we need.

  40. 79 Jedi Pauly November 4, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Dear Dr. Kate;

    I have produced a scientific legal proof of the true meaning and interpretation of Article II and “natural born Citizen”. I wanted to e-mail you but I can not find an e-mail contact so I am posting the text of my work so that you might read it and become enlightened to the truth. If you would like the file please contact me. Here is the text:

    November 2nd, 2010

    THE TRUE MEANING AND INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE II “natural born Citizen”

    A SCIENTIFIC LEGAL THEORY

    by

    JEDI PAULY

    I wish to undertake a critical analysis of the incomplete works of attorneys Orly Taitz, and Phil Berg, and Mario Apuzzo, concerning the meaning and definition of “natural born Citizen” within the political context of Article II and within the intent of Article II. It is my contention that none of the attorneys working on exposing the illegal usurper know as Barack Obama have described any valid theory of law that properly explains why Obama cannot possibly qualify to be President under Article II. I will show their mistakes and limitations and I will expose their incomplete efforts as failed hypotheses rather than valid correct legal theories, and I will state the correct and complete legal theory that clearly defines “natural born Citizen” within the context and intent of Article II and show how and why Obama cannot possibly qualify for the office of President.

    First, let us examine the works of attorneys Orly Taitz and Mario Apuzzo because they are essentially saying the same thing as each other and they are both making the same mistakes. To the best of my knowledge, neither one has ever stated a correct legal theory that explains why Obama cannot qualify under Article II, but rather they just assert facts and draw wrong conclusions based upon failed legal hypotheses. Their arguments go something like this: They claim or believe that the term “natural born Citizen” from Article II is an undefined legal term that the courts must determine the meaning of, because somehow the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ has changed over time by precedents from U.S. Supreme court decisions, and therefore there is some conflict or confusion that has led to the “natural born Citizen” in Article II losing or changing its meaning and interpretation over time. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they both fail to realize is that none of the U.S. Supreme Court cases have done anything at all to change the meaning and interpretation of Article II, and they could not even if they wanted to, because it requires a Constitutional Amendment to change Article II, not a judge’s opinion or a statute from Congress. Another misconception on their part is that U.S. case law from the Supreme Court has changed the definition of “natural born Citizen” at all. All the Supreme Court cases have done is just reiterated what the definition(s) of natural born citizen(s) has been for thousands of years that existed in other legal jurisdictions long before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The only relevancy of the U.S. Supreme Court cases is that their decisions form part of the relevant case law for the U.S. legal system because the pre-existing definitions of ‘natural born citizen’ were created in legal jurisdictions outside of the U.S. jurisdiction, that had existed long before the formation of the U.S. government. Finally, it is totally bizarre to conceive that the Framers of Article II would be able to write into the Constitution the qualifications for the highest political office in the land with undefined legal terms that they themselves could not have known, and that were subject to the whims of judicial interpretations, and subject to change by stare decisis, or by the whims of Congress with a simple statute. What an incredibly impossible task it would have been to write Article II under those circumstances. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

    Here are the facts encountered by Orly Taitz and Mario Apuzzo. They looked back in time to the encyclopedia of law known as The Law of Nations written by Emerich de Vattel. Mr. Vattel reports that one definition of ‘natural born citizen’ means “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” (interpreted by Taitz and Apuzzo to mean plural or both parents).

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” (Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, section 212)

    They then move the clock forward a bit, after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and they encounter a statement by Judge John Bingham who said that ‘children who are born in the country, of parents who do not owe any political allegiance to other countries, are in the language of the Constitution itself, natural born citizens’. Mrs. Taitz and Mr. Apuzzo then assert from these facts, that, that is what Article II means and why it requires BOTH parents to be citizens and also that one must be born on U.S. soil in order to qualify for the office of President. This is their legal hypothesis which is easy to debunk. Forget about the fact that Orly and Mario have just disenfranchised any and all children born of military parents on foreign shores, contrary to U.S. case law, and forget about the fact that there have been many examples of Presidents, after the Sunset Clause expired, that did not have U.S. citizen mothers but their Presidencies were never in question as to their validity, and let’s just look at the one giant glaring mistake that crashes their hypothesis. The definition they use says ALL children born of citizen parents are natural born citizens which includes males and females, but Article II is only talking about free born MALES because females had no political rights recognized for almost 150 years after the adoption of the Constitution (Minor v Happersett) and it took the 19th Amendment to recognize the natural inherited political rights of women. Isn’t it bizarre to think that, prior to the 19th Amendment, that a female could be President, which is a political right, but females could not even vote and the Minor court case could find no political voting rights for women within the Constitution? Obviously the “natural born Citizen” in Article II does not mean ALL children born of citizen parents since females were originally excluded from the sovereign body politic even though they are natural born citizens the same as males. So much for their hypothesis. Their hypothesis has just gone down in flames, because we have shown that not all ‘natural born citizens’ are created to have the same political rights recognized under the law. Obviously, Article II “natural born Citizen” cannot mean what they contend because it never was originally intended to include females.

    If I were to give a letter grade to Orly Taitz or Mario Apuzzo it would have to be an F+ for failing to state a valid legal theory that explains why Obama cannot qualify under Article II, and for failing to apply any legal principles or other observations of history and Nature to validate their hypothesis. Why the ” + ” ? They get a plus for their efforts and having their hearts in the right place, especially Orly Taitz who has worked very hard to bring the issue to people’s attention, even though she has not been explaining the issue correctly. She has had to put up with a lot of grief for her efforts, although she has brought a lot of the grief upon herself through her own inappropriate actions. Let’s move on to Philip Berg who scores much better.

    Attorney Philip Berg uses a different approach than Orly Taitz or Mario Apuzzo uses. Phil uses the approach of a prosecutor who is trying to prove criminal intent by removing all of the possibilities and what is left must be the truth. This is a valid approach to proving Obama is not qualified and can prove that Obama is a criminal fraud. Phil achieves this goal in my estimation. However, his approach does not include the declaration of any valid theory of law that shows what the meaning and definition of Article II is. It is not surprising that Phil would use this approach because it is my understanding that he was a former assistant Secretary of State, which is one of the branches of government that is responsible for prosecuting the laws of a State, so he is trained to think like a prosecutor, probably also influenced by years of experience in the role of a prosecutor in his law practice and other years of similar experience. Here is what Phil has done. Phil’s reasoning seems to go something like this: He believes that under the laws of the U.S., there are basically three ways to be considered a ‘natural born citizen’. You can be a ‘natural born citizen’ by just the soil jurisdiction, even if both parents are foreign citizens (anchor babies for example), or you can be a ‘natural born citizen’ by just your mom being a U.S. citizen, even if you have a foreign dad, as long as your mom is old enough and meets other statutory conditions, or you can be a ‘natural born citizen’ as long as your dad is a U.S. citizen when you are born. He then proceeds to show that each element is not possible for Obama to achieve. Phil first eliminates the soil jurisdiction as a pathway by asserting that Barack was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii, which is a very convincing argument based on the evidence that he can show and the circumstantial evidence of Obama’s behavior surrounding this issue. He then eliminates Barack’s mother as a pathway to natural born citizen status by showing that she cannot meet the statutory requirements to pass on a natural born citizenship status to her son, however this is a rather weak technicality of the law that would not be sufficient enough to convince one that Obama should be considered not to be qualified under Article II. Finally, Phil then eliminates Barack’s dad because obviously he was never a U.S. citizen so his father cannot be a pathway to ‘natural born’ citizen status. With all three avenues eliminated, the only conclusion one can make is that Obama cannot possibly be a ‘natural born’ citizen of the U.S., therefore he obviously is unqualified by Article II requirements. I must admit that Phil can probably convince any jury that this is the case and Phil can be said to have achieved the goal of proving that Obama is not a valid President, but that is not the same thing as putting forth a theory of law that shows what Article II “natural born Citizen” means, or how it is properly defined within the political context and within the intent of Article II. Phil almost gets there because he does go a bit further and makes a point that Barack’s citizenship status is controlled by Kenya and Britain, and not by the laws of the U.S., which seems like he implies that there is no political allegiance to the U.S. at birth, although I am not quite sure that he states it quite that way and I have not seen him relate the full ramifications and implications of this into a coherent theory of law that explains Article II. I have never heard Phil Berg speak to what would happen if Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and his mom was indeed old enough. Then what? He does not seem to go that extra mile and explain that Article II does not prohibit dual citizenships under all circumstances, it only prohibits dual political allegiances that are inherited and requires that your inherited political allegiance belong to the U.S. and not some other jurisdiction or country. He does not explain that Barack actually is potentially born with the legal privilege of three possible citizenships, one from Kenya and one from the British commonwealth or Britain, and one from the U.S., but Barack only potentially inherits either one or two political allegiances depending on the recognition of the monarchy form of government in England. Barack would inherit a political allegiance to Kenya from his dad and he might inherit a political allegiance to England via the soil jurisdiction since the form of government in England is that of a monarchy and monarchies create automatic political allegiances at birth just by being born on the king’s soil jurisdiction. In either case, whether Barack had one or two inherited political allegiances at birth, neither one would be an inherited political allegiance to the U.S. I will give Phil a B or B+.

    This is where I now add my contribution to this issue by describing the correct theory of law that shows the true meaning and interpretation of Article II, that will show that even if Obama was born on U.S. soil to a fully-aged legal U.S. citizen mother, that he still would not qualify because the soil jurisdiction and your mother’s citizenship are irrelevant for Article II purposes. I will now describe the theory.

    THEORY

    Article II “natural born Citizen” is fully defined by the Natural Law jurisdiction and natural circumstances, and does not mean just any person who is a ‘natural born’ citizen by statutory privilege or definition. Rather, it requires conditions of your birth that create a specific ‘natural born’ citizen at birth, one who inherits their political right to be President as a Natural Right and not to one who obtains their political rights as a legal privilege from the Positive Law jurisdiction. The natural political right to be President is an unalienable natural right recognized under the U.S. Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, that is obtained by inheritance only from a citizen father, because that is where both males and females get their natural political rights from. The natural political rights of both males and females are only recognized and realized as ‘legal rights’, which are privileges, that are created in the Positive Law jurisdiction by males, not females. This logical order is a natural objective self-evident truth and consequence of Nature that is caused by the fact of a male’s natural superiority in physical strength and aggression. This is why the Declaration of Independence says that it is a ‘self-evident truth that all MEN are created equal and that they are endowed with political rights (Liberty) that come from the Laws of Nature (endowed by their Creator means as a function of the Natural Law jurisdiction and Nature’s Laws) and that governments are instituted among MEN deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’, meaning the male voting members of society. The Declaration of Independence is not talking about the political rights of females and the Constitution did not originally recognize women to be part of the sovereign body politic (Minor v Happersett) until the 19th Amendment almost 150 years after the Constitution was adopted.

    ASSERTED FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS

    There exists a Natural Law jurisdiction from where we get our Natural Rights which are an endowment from Nature, and Natural Rights are unalienable.

    There exists a Positive Law jurisdiction from where we get our Legal Rights from, and legal rights are privileges. Positive Law means man-made statutory law from the Latin root “posit” which means that which is declared and agreed to. It is sometimes referred to as ‘decreed law’ under a monarchy political system.

    Natural Law is defined to be opposite or opposed to the Positive Law.

    Political Rights are Natural Rights which are Inherited from our Fathers (Declaration of Independence).

    The legal context of Article II is a Political context because the Office of President is the highest Political Office in the land.

    The Declaration of Independence and the War of 1776 secured the sovereign political authority of the former citizen ‘subjects’ of the King of England who were not born having their natural sovereign political authority or natural sovereign political rights to be recognized by the King.

    With the successful conclusion of the War of 1776, the colonies, and later the U.S., no longer recognized the automatic inherited political allegiances from soil jurisdictions which had been the case in the colonies under the monarchy form of government of England. U.S. law does not recognize there to be political allegiances owed due to being born on soil jurisdictions.

    The U.S. Constitution establishes a Sovereign Republic of Sovereign citizens.

    A Sovereign authority is the author and source of the law.

    A Sovereign citizen takes his jurisdiction with him wherever he goes.

    Natural Rights are Inherited from other human beings and are not obtained from soil jurisdictions which are just artificially created legal fictions.

    Article II is meant to protect the sovereignty of the citizens and nation by ensuring political allegiance to a Sovereign Republic form of government by preventing a monarchy, because the original intent was that Article II should bar Titles of Nobility from attaining the office of President, which would create a Monarchy and not a Sovereign Republic.

    HYPOTHESES

    1) Article II “natural born Citizen” is describing a member of the Sovereign Body Politic from among the natural born citizens of the country, which did not originally include females even though they were also natural born citizens.

    One need only examine Article II, section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ….” Notice that “natural born Citizen”, and “Citizen” and “United States” are all referring to sovereign political entities that have their sovereign status recognized by the positive law jurisdiction. “United States” is a sovereign political entity formed from the States of the Union which are Sovereign States. The “Citizen of the United States” is referring to the sovereign male citizens from the Sovereign States that were not born having their sovereign political status recognized by the King at birth because they were former colonies of the Monarchy. It cannot be claimed that “Citizen” is referring to just any citizen, because the female citizens of the States did not have their sovereign political status recognized by the positive law jurisdiction because none of the States recognized females to have any political voting rights. That is the purpose for capitalizing “Citizen” to indicate a certain specific citizen or political condition. The reference is to former males who were born as citizen ‘subjects’ of the king due to the soil jurisdiction of the king which caused those male citizens to owe a political allegiance to the King at birth. An exception had to be made to accommodate these male citizens since they were not born without inherited foreign political allegiances. This part of Article II is called the Sunset Clause and indicates that “natural born Citizen” is referring to the future naturally created members of society, after the adoption of the Constitution, who are born with an inherited sovereign political authority recognized in the positive law jurisdiction who will not owe a political allegiance at birth due to soil jurisdiction, but will have to inherit their sovereign political status, which implies males who are created by citizen fathers, since both males and females inherit their political condition from their citizen fathers. The capitalization and the logic of the sentence construction indicates specific citizens, i.e. males, and specific political conditions that occur naturally at birth.

    2) There are many different natural conditions or circumstances that can create a natural born citizen status but only the correct natural conditions can create a natural born citizen that will prevent titles of nobility from attaining the Office of President. The place of your birth and the citizenship status of your mother are irrelevant for Article II purposes.

    Under the laws of the United States, there are several permutations or pathways to claim a natural born citizen status. You can be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ if you are just born on the soil jurisdiction of the U.S. even if you have two parents that are not U.S. citizens. We call those citizens created solely from the soil jurisdiction ‘natural born citizens’ because during the days of the English Common Law when there was a Monarchy form of political system controlling the Colonies, any person born on the King’s soil jurisdiction was naturally born subject to the King’s jurisdiction (citizen ‘subject’ of king George), and those persons were born inheriting a duty to owe a political allegiance to the King that the King demanded of them because he controlled the soil jurisdiction that the King claimed dominion over, and also over all subjects within the soil jurisdiction. Strictly speaking however, those citizens are not ‘natural born’ by the Laws of Nature to inherit a political allegiance from their fathers due to natural laws, but rather just due to circumstances because the King’s jurisdiction is a Positive Law jurisdiction of legal privileges, not a Natural Law jurisdiction, and the King is not the source of natural inherited rights. The King dictates to those born on his soil what political rights you may have, and they do not include the right to claim an inheritance of a sovereign political authority from your father because then you would be in direct conflict with the King. The King was the only person with the privilege to be permitted to claim a sovereign political authority under a monarchy form of government. That was the entire issue with the Declaration of Independence and the War of 1776 when our colonial forefathers declared that political rights do not come from the King, or his soil jurisdiction, but are actually endowed to males from the Laws of Nature and come to both males and females from our fathers, not from the soil, nor from a king, nor the king’s parliament in England. We fought and won the war of 1776 and secured to ourselves the recognition of our own natural sovereign political authority inherited from the natural law jurisdiction from our fathers. Since that time, we have abandoned the notion that soil jurisdictions cause you to owe a political allegiance to the state, and you now owe political allegiance directly inherited through your father. That was the entire point of the Revolution. People need to wake up and read the memo that we are no longer a monarchy and U.S. law does not recognize the soil jurisdiction as a determination for political allegiances. This is why it makes no difference where you are born for Article II purposes because it is not possible to owe any political allegiance to a foreign state or to the U.S. just by being born on their soil jurisdiction. That ended 250 years ago! The government is not our king! It serves us, not the other way around! If we still recognized the soil jurisdiction to cause one to automatically owe a political allegiance to the U.S. just by being born on the soil jurisdiction of the U.S., then there would be no way to prevent a foreign king from attaining the office of President because any foreign king could just come to America with his wife, and she could give birth on U.S. soil, and then that child would inherit a political allegiance to his foreign father and would be a royal prince with a title of nobility who could then also claim an owed political allegiance to the U.S. due to the soil, and then we could have a monarchy again because a title of nobility could then qualify under Article II and become President. What is confusing people is that they fail to realize that there is a huge difference between owing a political allegiance at birth due to inheritance and natural laws, and just being entitled to the privilege of citizenship which is just a legal right of the soil and not a natural right due to parents. Just because you are born with the privilege of citizenship from multiple jurisdictions does not mean that you are born with multiple owed allegiances. There is no allegiance owed at birth for privileges that you do not accept. For example, my father was in the Air Force and he was a U.S. citizen when I was born in Japan. I did not inherit a political allegiance to Japan at birth but I was entitled at age 18 to receive the privilege of Japanese citizenship, which I declined. I can still qualify for the Office of President because I inherited my political allegiance to the U.S. at birth directly from my citizen father. The Japanese soil cannot prevent the Laws of Nature, or my owed political allegiance to my father and his country, from being passed on from my dad to me. I did not owe any allegiance to Japan due to their soil jurisdiction because the U.S. does not recognize its citizens to owe allegiances to a state due to their soil jurisdiction, ever since we won our independence 250 years ago! This is why the place of your birth is totally irrelevant for determining who qualifies under Article II. You must have a citizen father to qualify. A similar argument proves that your mother is also irrelevant.

    Another way to be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ of the U.S. is to just be born to a U.S. citizen mother as long as she is old enough and meets other statutory requirements. At least with your mom or dad we can move beyond the Positive Law jurisdiction of legal rights and legal privileges of soil to actually consider the Natural Law jurisdiction and what natural rights are inherited from your parents. By having a parent who is a citizen, then it can strictly be interpreted that we are talking about Natural Rights because natural rights are inherited from one human being to another, not from soil. A ‘natural born’ citizen status from just your mom fails however to meet Article II requirements on two fronts. By looking at both the political context of Article II and the purpose and intent of Article II, which is to ensure political allegiance to the U.S. by preventing titles of nobility from attaining the office of President, we can see that your mom cannot be a determining factor for Article II purposes. First, just look at the political context. Since the office of President is a political right and political rights are natural rights that are inherited from males under the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, you cannot inherit from your mother who is a female, the natural political right to be President. Both males and females inherit their political rights from their fathers, not their mothers. Next, look at the intent to prevent titles of nobility and it is obvious that if any foreign king can impregnate a female U.S. citizen, then you would have a child born who inherits a title of nobility and a political allegiance to a foreign country through his father who cannot even claim an inherited political allegiance to the United States, even though he would be a ‘natural born’ citizen by his mother, because we do not inherit political allegiance through our citizen mothers. Clearly your mom alone makes it impossible to qualify under Article II.

    We have now proven that both the soil jurisdiction and your mother are not even part of the consideration of Article II and what is being referred to in Article II as a “natural born Citizen”. Article II is clearly only talking about a “natural born Citizen” that is created by a male, your father. Both the soil and your mom fail on two fronts. They fail because they cannot prevent titles of nobility from attaining the Office of President, and they fail because both males and females inherit their political rights and owed allegiances directly from their citizen fathers, not from soil jurisdictions, nor from their mothers who are females.

    3) The office of President is not supposed to be an office that a person is born into the PRIVILEGE of qualifying for, it is supposed to be that a person must be born qualifying as a NATURAL RIGHT, not a legal privilege.

    The term ‘natural born citizen’ from the soil jurisdiction, is a legal privilege only, and it refers to a citizenship that is recognized solely by the soil jurisdiction without regards to the citizenship of the parents. Also, if you have a foreign father, then a ‘natural born citizen’ status from a citizen mother is also a legal privilege defined in statutes with strict conditions placed on age and residency requirements of the mother before one can claim a natural born citizen status as a U.S. citizen. Both conditions are LEGAL PRIVILEGES and not the recognition of a NATURAL RIGHT to be a citizen. To the best of my knowledge, there are no statutory requirements if you are created by a citizen father, you are automatically recognized to be a natural born U.S. citizen, no matter the age of your citizen father, as a natural right and not a legal privilege. The Office of President is supposed to be one that you inherit the natural right to qualify for and it is not supposed to be that you are born into qualifying as a legal privilege like a noble title. That was the entire problem with the monarchy form of government in England that the founding fathers were trying to avoid. In England, under the English Common Law and monarchy, there was an elite group or privileged class of natural born citizens who had titles of nobility (royalty). They were the only natural born citizens of England that could claim the political right to be the head political leaders of their country. The commoners were also natural born citizens but they were not members of the sovereign body politic that was exclusively for those with titles of nobility. The commoners originally could never serve in the House of Lords (why do you think it is called the House of Lords?) or claim a sovereign political authority to be a king. Our founding fathers wanted to move away from this elitism of the nobility and permit any natural born citizen male who inherits a political allegiance from his citizen father to have the opportunity to hold the highest political office in the land. Furthermore, they did not want to entrust Congress to be in a position to grant a privilege of a title of nobility to a citizen or non-citizen that was not born inheriting a political allegiance to the United States, who could then be a king and take over the office of President and create a monarchy. If the office of President was just a privilege and not a natural right, then Congress and the courts could just create a Presidential privilege statute for their friends, and interpret it with the courts, to create a special privileged class that would overturn the Constitution, and the sovereign People of the country could just be disenfranchised from their natural political rights by Congress and the Courts. With Article II “natural born Citizen” meaning you must inherit your political allegiance from your citizen father, this places the jurisdiction outside of Congress or the Courts and forces the jurisdiction to be the Natural Law jurisdiction which is opposite and outside of the Positive Law jurisdiction of Congress or the Courts. This is why Article II is totally defined under a Natural Law jurisdiction by natural conditions of having a citizen father to inherit your political rights and owed political allegiance from, so Congress and the Courts will have no lawful jurisdiction to create a privilege or title of nobility that would disenfranchise the people from their own government. This is in fact what has now happened with Obama because the Congress and Courts have conspired together to exceed their authority and grant the privilege of a sovereign political authority to Obama when he never had the natural right to claim an inherited sovereign political authority, nor claim an owed political allegiance to the U.S. at birth, inherited also from his citizen father.

    CONCLUSION

    We have now discovered and proven what the true meaning and definition and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen” is. It is clear that it has nothing to do with your place of birth nor your mother, but just means a natural born citizen created by a citizen father. The utter contempt of the Congress, and the Courts, and the Department of Justice, and the FBI, Military, News Media, etc., for the Constitution and the sovereign political rights of the People, is now blatantly clear. There can be no question that there is no political representation of the citizens, or recognition of the natural sovereign political rights of males, or any legal recognition of the freedoms and liberties of We the People. With Obama installed as a usurper, we have now gone back in time to the identical political conditions that existed prior to the Declaration of Independence under the tyranny of the monarchy of King George and his Parliament. We now live under tyranny and involuntary servitude to Congress and their statutes that cannot possibly be valid law with an illegal President signing them. The Courts of course, are going to expect the citizenry to accept the validity of the statutes, and the courts’ authority, when in fact the statutes are completely without validity and the courts lack authority and proper jurisdiction to enforce the statutes signed by Obama. The judges will no longer be judges but instead they will become prosecutors, usurping authority that they do not have to prosecute political tyranny with lies, forcing people against their rights of conscience to accept lies and false laws, and they will ignore the natural sovereign political rights of the citizens that are recognized in the Declaration of Independence and implied in the U.S. Constitution. A condition of involuntary servitude, which is the essence of SLAVERY, will now be the law of the land. It is ironic that in 2008 a black man and the Supreme Court is responsible for reviving the condition of slavery in America. It is unconscionable that the FBI and Justice Department and Courts just sit on their hands and lack the political will to enforce the laws and Constitution and they will just stand by and watch the courts become corrupted and the citizenry abused and violated. We might as well be living in Nazi Germany. The Republic is lost. All hail King Obama and the 50 State Plantation of America. I hope you enjoy being a slave.


  1. 1 LTC Lakin's hearing this Thursday - Political Forum Trackback on September 1, 2010 at 4:45 am
  2. 2 The Usurpathon goes to D.C. to stop the treason | The Post & Email Trackback on September 1, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Comments are currently closed.



August 2010
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

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

  • 1,684,326 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

%d bloggers like this: