Tyranny in America: The Judiciary

©2009 drkate

(Author’s Note.  This is a long post, and there is much information to chew on here as well as through the links provided. Consequently I am going to leave this article up for a couple of days.  Thanks for your patience!)


This post continues the Tyranny in America series, and focuses squarely on Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the Judiciary.  Previous essays on tyranny focused on Articles I and II.  “Judicial tyranny” is most associated with the term ‘judicial activism’, which has its origin in the power of  ‘judicial review’.  Would you be surprised to learn that the Founders’ intent was to have an independent judiciary that served to protect the Constitution?

A look at the Judiciary is not of abstract importance now, as threshold Constitutional issues over which the Courts would seem to have jurisdiction are being dismissed using such crass and common tools as ‘ lack of jurisdictional venue’, ‘lack of standing‘, the ‘political question‘,  delays in decision-making, and minute technical language errors of the filings, such as ‘not stating a claim upon which a remedy can be obtained’.

In Federalist Paper 78, The Judiciary Department, Hamilton argued that a strong and independent judiciary was essential to a limited Constitution. He further argued that an independent judiciary is necessary to protect liberty, and would function to guard against tyranny of the other branches of government.  Thus  judicial review arose and is based upon historical precedent that it is one of the non-violent ways to fulfill a duty to resist tyranny.

That is a good place to start:  the Judiciary has a duty to resist tyranny, and to protect the Constitution.  Has it done so?

Article III

The analysis begins with the language of Article III, which has three sections:

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

In what form has tyranny has slipped into the tent of the Judiciary under  the first two sections of Article III?

The Origins & Scope of ‘Judicial Review’

The definition of  ‘judicial review’ adopted for the purposes of this discussion is the right of the Judicial branch to declare a law unconstitutional. Judicial Review originated in 1803, in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowing for the Writ of Mandamus was unconstitutional. This decision helped put the Judicial Branch on a more even footing with the Legislative Branch, and later the Executive Branch.

In a 1996 article, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren E. Berger wrote:

Lord Bryce, the noted English political thinker, once said that:

No feature of the government of the United States has awakened so much curiosity . . caused so much discussion, received so much admiration, and been more frequently misunderstood, than the duties assigned to the Supreme Court and the functions which it discharges in guarding the Ark of the Constitution…

It is helpful to an understanding of the issues surrounding the unique role of the judiciary in the American constitutional system to examine one particular aspect. The setting in which Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803, with all its momentous consequences for our country, is important. That great case had its antecedents in our colonial experience and its tap roots in the declarations of fundamental rights of Englishmen dating back to the Magna Carta almost 500 years before our independence.

The colonial experience of living under a distant parliamentary system with no check on the legislative or executive, except that of popular will in a very limited way, led our Founding Fathers to feel strongly the need for limitations on all branches of government. They were skeptical if not suspicious of power. The intellectual spade work for the system ultimately adopted for our federal government had been done by such seventeenth- and eighteenth-century political theorists as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. The great rationalist Montesquieu contributed the idea of a separation of powers within the government itself, with each branch acting as a kind of brake upon the others.

As the system worked, one of the functions exercised by the Supreme Court involves measuring executive or legislative action – or that of the states – against the Constitution whenever a challenge to such action is properly brought within the framework of a “case” or “controversy.”

While there is little controversy over the right of the Courts to ‘measure’ acts of Congress or the Executive, it is the scope of that review that causes controversy to this day.  Importantly, Berger offers up an interesting historical example of  this controversy:

… But when a case or controversy is properly brought before the Court on a claim that some governmental action is contrary to the Constitution, someone must decide the issue: the Court must decide. Needless to say, the major challenges to the Court’s power have occurred during those periods when, for whatever reason, the Supreme Court has been under attack for its role in contemporary affairs. As an example, many polemics as well as some of the most thoughtful and scholarly challenges were written during the 1930’s when, to many of its critics, the Supreme Court represented the dead hand of the past, impeding legitimate experimentation and innovation while the legislature and the executive were trying to cope with a national economic crisis...

It is a fact that when Congress disagrees with a judicial interpretation of a statue, it can enact a new statute that replaces that judicial interpretation. Not only have Congress and the states done so in the past, they have also responded to judicial interpretation by amending the Constitution in four instances.  All Presidents want to appoint judges that will interpret the constitution ‘properly’;  a frustrated FDR tried to expand the Supreme Court’s size to 15 in 1934 but failed.

Anything about this history sound familiar to you today? 😯

Judicial Tyranny

So the charges of  ‘judicial tyranny‘ are rooted in the Court’s judicial review authority. Many of the concerns seem to involve rulings that change the balance of power between the government and the people, which involves interpreting the constitution through the lens of a ‘constitutionalist’ or originalist, or one who believes in a liberal interpretation of the constitution as a ‘living document’, to be ‘interpreted with the times’.

  • Must the Court take a Constitutional Case?

Well, yes.   Article III provides that the power of Supreme Court and other Courts so established ‘shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution.’   To what extent is there any discretion to choose not to take a case, given that someone must decide?

Cases in point are all the eligibility cases, especially the few that remain.  The Courts have refused to hear a constitutional challenge based on ‘technical’ reasons, most of which are ‘judicial inventions‘–standing, the ‘political question’, and jurisdiction and venue.  Other barriers the Courts have constructed include certain ‘tests’ of worthiness, merit, likely outcome–concepts not contemplated in the use of the words “..power..shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution”

Charles Kerchner (Kerchner v. Obama), citing Chief Justice John Marshall, writes that:

The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.

Yes, you heard it right: treason to the Constitution, the words of John Marshall in 1821.  Take a look at the article, it is well worth the read.

It’s not hard to imagine judges in their quarters ticking off every excuse they can to dismiss eligibility cases, preferring them to the ‘political question’…in other words, the Constitution is up for a vote.

dismissedHere it is exposed: the tyranny of using the judicial system to undermine the Constitution. Instead of protecting the Ark of the Constitution, the judiciary lets democracy (majority rule) usurp the law.  😯

Discussion of Options

Options to remedy this situation using the tools our Founders gave us are numerous, and really require a separate post.  But here are a few options being discussed currently, and which I hope will be raised at the Continental Congress 2009:

  • Eliminate lifetime appointment for federal judges
  • No judicial nominee should be confirmed who rejects the jurisprudence of originalism
  • Revive the Grand Jury System, here and additional work here.
  • Reform of Judicial elections

There are many more options to discuss.  There may be an opportunity brewing in California involving corruption within the entire judicial system that could be used as impetus for reform.  Certainly, and even with missteps on the part of some attorneys,  the disgraceful behavior of the Courts in the eligibility cases should be a rallying point for the Nation.

Enforce the Constitution, or resign.


52 Responses to “Tyranny in America: The Judiciary”

  1. 1 One Nerve Left October 14, 2009 at 4:29 am

    Once again Dr. Kate has posted information that is important for all citizens to read. Information is the key as it allows us to make decisions regarding a course of action. Spread her posts far and wide.

    I have maintained concerns regarding the Supreme Court for quite a while and those concerns heightened with the current administration in that a new judge (or two) who are born and bred by the politics of party will effect negative changes to me, you and this country. Judicial actions which stray from the constitutional requirement of acting as a separate entity from the executive and legislative branched,serve to further erode our freedoms.

  2. 2 drkate October 14, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    OT (sort of): State of Hawaii invokes atty-client privilege regarding Donofrio’s request for information…more tyranny by hiding behind ‘atty-client privilege’


    • 7 jbjd October 15, 2009 at 8:01 am

      Let’s say, I am the general counsel for the HI DoH, and someone initiates administrative and legal proceedings based on a claim, the Commissioner of the DoH has triggered disclosure provisions in the law, by making a statement based on the contents of records in her possession and under her control. Here is my response.

      1. Running a statement by the AG to determine, for example, whether such statement might implicate any disclosure of records is not the same thing as having the AG issue a formal opinion, which is numbered and catalogued; therefore, such consultation and advice does not evidence official government policy or precedent.
      2. Saying someone is a NBC does not trigger more disclosure because a) such statement is based on public knowledge, i.e., NP’s Certification of Nomination submitted to HI election officials; and b) the Commissioner did not represent that she was issuing this opinion as part of her official duties and responsibilities; and c) as a lay person, she cannot be reasonably expected to issue a legal analysis of what is a NBC.

      In my opinion, Leo, Justin, and others who desperately want to ‘catch’ someone saying something to trigger the provisions of laws that might require them to open up the books. But even ASSUMING the strained interpretation of events promoted by these practitioners is accurate, this still will not trigger an opening up of the books. Rather, at best, this will only trigger a withdrawal of the statement, and an apology for inadvertently misleading people into thinking, it meant more than was intended.

      • 8 drkate October 15, 2009 at 8:30 am

        Thank you. I was wondering.

      • 9 bho boo October 16, 2009 at 8:18 am

        But Obama’s released his COLB and therefore any privacy interest in it. That’s really all that’s needed.

        See, he generated that himself, Hawaii does not have it, it’s a “wish list” COLB.

        The point is to get beyond birth matters and on to Constitutional matters. They prefer the potential threat over the obvious threat and so continues the obfuscations.

  3. 10 Quantum Leap October 14, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

    Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.

    OBAMA – Admitted:

    1. I was born in Kenya.
    2. I am a Kenya “natural born” citizen.

    3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
    4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.

    5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.
    6. My mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.

    7. The COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
    8. I was adopted by a Foreign Citizen.

    9. I was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
    10. I was not born in Hawaii.

    11. I was not born at the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii.
    12. I was not born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii.

    13. I was not born in a Hospital in Hawaii.
    14. I am a citizen of Indonesia.

    15. I never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain my U.S. Citizenship status.
    16. I am not a “natural born” United States citizen.

    17. My date of birth is August 4, 1961.
    18. I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with my Pakistan friends.

    19. In 1981, I went to Indonesia on my way to Pakistan.
    20. Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens.

    21. In 1981, Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country.
    22. I traveled on my Indonesian Passport to Pakistan.

    23. I renewed my Indonesian Passport on my way to Pakistan.
    24. My senior campaign staff is aware I am not a “natural born” United States Citizen.

    25. I am proud of my Kenya Heritage.
    26. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.

    27. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.
    28. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.

    29. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.
    30. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.

    31. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.
    32. The document identified as my Indonesian School record from Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia is genuine.

    33. I went to a Judge in Hawaii to have my name changed.
    34. I went to a Senator and/or Congressman or other public official in Hawaii to have my name changed.

    35. I had a passport issued to me from the Government of Indonesia.
    36. The United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.

    37. I am ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.
    38. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Indonesia.

    39. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Kenya.
    40. I am an Attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law.

    41. Kenya was a part of the British Colonies at the time of my birth.
    42. Kenya did not become its own Republic until 1963.

    43. I am not a “Naturalized” United States Citizen.
    44. I obtained $200 Million dollars in campaign funds by fraudulent means.

    45. I cannot produce a “vault” (original) long version of a birth certificate showing my birth in Hawaii.
    46. My “vault” (original) long version birth certificate shows my birth in Kenya.

    47. The only times I was to a Hospital in Hawaii was for check-ups or medical treatments for illnesses.
    48. Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.

    49. Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.
    50. I was born in the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

    51. I represented on my State Bar application in Illinois that I never used any other name other than Barack Hussein Obama.
    52. I went by the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia.

    53. My Indonesian school records are under the name of Barry Soetoro.
    54. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when admitted to the State Bar of Illinois to practice Law.

    55. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when I was Sworn into my United States Senate Office.
    56. I hold dual citizenship with at least one other Country besides the United States of America.

    DNC – Admitted:

    1. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.
    2. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama.

    3. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama.
    4.The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

    5. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.
    6. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen.

    7. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii.
    8.The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status.

    9. The DNC admits they have a duty to properly vette the Democratic Nominee for President.
    10.The DNC admits Lolo Soetoro, M.A., an Indonesian citizen adopted Barrack Hussein Obama.

    11. The DNC admits the Credentials Committee has been aware of this lawsuit since August 22, 2008 as the lawsuit was faxed to our Washington D.C. Office on August 22, 2008.

    12. The DNC admits their Credentials Committee failed to verify and/or inquire into the credentials of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as the President of the United States.

    13. The DNC admits their Credential Committee’s Report failed to address the issues of Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility to serve as President of the United States.
    14.The DNC admits Howard Dean, Chair Person has and had knowledge Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to serve as the President of the United States.

    15. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all Democratic citizens of the United States have been personally injured as a result of not having a qualified Democratic Presidential Nominee to cast their votes upon.
    16. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President of the United States and to have two (2) qualified candidates of which to choose from.

    17. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional right to have a properly vetted Democratic Presidential Nominee of which to cast their vote.
    18. The DNC admits an FBI background check is not performed on the Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates.

    19. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
    20. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign.

    21. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States.
    22. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis.

    23. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
    24. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution.

    25. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution.
    26. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizen’s interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans.

    27. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States.

    forward to your local newspapers, radio and TV stations. Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

  4. 11 J. Finis Davis October 14, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    Dr. Kate:

    During the Civil War, ordinary citizens could go to the White House and meet personally with Abraham Lincoln.

    Do you know of any legal historical precedent in which an ordinary citizen could make a personal appeal directly to a Supreme Court judge (or the courts as a whole) in a grievance involving the denial of a Constitutional Right as an American citizen?

    Surely there is a precedent from the early days of our country when a citizen went to the Supreme Court (probably by horseback) to make a citizen appeal to a member or members of the Supreme Court for an immediate redress of a grievance.

    The Magna Carta of 1215 seemed to establish a principle of the ordinary citizen having a right to appeal to the king.

    Just curious. The gulf between the judicial king(s) and the citizen is too wide. If someone could provide me a historical example of an ordinary citizen making a direct and personal appeal to a Supreme Court Justice, I would be grateful to know about it.


  5. 12 bho boo October 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    This is such a mess, the European cabal of mafioso holding the puppet strings of the usurper had have threatened the judiciary since this goes well beyond koolaid complicitness. They’ve mocked the grand jury of course. I even called SCOTUS asking for a transcript of the 2nd oath and was met with unbridled abuse as if a citizen to want to know what Ofraud swore to was unmitigated gall. He couldn’t say if it was the same oath as the first time, only that they released photos (so what?). This is such a mess.

    • 13 susan h October 14, 2009 at 3:49 pm

      One or two more Sonia Sotomayors on the Supreme Court and we are out of luck in regards to any cases/verdicts being upheld. The Supreme Court will be to Obama what it was to Bush in 2000, his puppet.

    • 14 Quantum Leap October 14, 2009 at 5:55 pm

      Yes that would be nice to see. I have oftern wondered what he swore to the second time.

  6. 15 Troy October 14, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    Wednesday, October 14, 2009

    Khamenei has died. The formal announcement is expected to be made tomorrow morning (Tehran time) .

    Relative to this, all regime organizations including the official regime news agency “Seda va Sima” are being draped in black.

    …and the MSM gets scooped again! 😉

  7. 19 kay October 14, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    Drkate….for you!
    I’m busy these days sending upia requests but saw this and thought of you!

  8. 21 Tony Stark October 14, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    Finally a great article written about the real issue of Obama’s British citizenship and lack of NBC status:


  9. 22 Tony Stark October 14, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    If a quo warranto case ever gets properly filed in the DC District Court against Obama, then it wouldn’t matter if SCOTUS is filled with Obama appointees, for a finding by that court that Obama is not eligible to be President means that every law he signed, every order and every appointee nominated to the SCOTUS will be null and void.

  10. 24 Quantum Leap October 14, 2009 at 9:15 pm

    So far 81% of Olympia Snowes constituents think she voted wrong. http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/125018.html?comment_result=posted#comments-post

    She gets paid by obama admin and congress to vote Dem. I remember reading a list of how much each one gets. Bachmann got 1.5M for writing the health rationing care bill. Not in my lifetime would I ever imagine that most all are paid to vote.
    And Hillary ….ahem…Hillary is allowing Russia to come and search America’s nuclear sites. “We want to ensure that every question that the Russian military or Russian government asks is answered,” Clinton said, calling missile defense “another area for deep cooperation between our countries.” She must have been implanted with a communist chip..another obot.groveling sniveler.

    • 25 drkate October 14, 2009 at 9:17 pm

      Good, now maybe they will kick her out and begin to hold her accountable. Maine went obot, so this is good.

      Wow on the being paid for a vote…gulp. It is true.

      • 26 Quantum Leap October 14, 2009 at 10:09 pm

        It is true. She gets paid as well as the others. Notice how she pretends she is not going to vote for the Dems. Then she always ends up voting with the Dems. It’s likely that she got offered more money. She is a multi-millionare as well as the others and they got rich in congress. My senator, Wyden is one of the few who does not get paid to vote and does not play their games.

  11. 29 Quantum Leap October 14, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    Ya know, I have to get this off my chest. Back when the birth issue began around the time of the RBC theft, the group of puma bloggers egged on TD and a blogger named Cathy or Nancy to do the research about the COLB. It was Nancy who found a ‘forms’ site that gave out birth cerificates for $19.95. She left the link in the blog and it went unoticed by most. If you clicked the link up popped the BC that is BHO’s fake BC. It showed how you could fill in the info for the name and state and print it out. I could kick myself for not saving that link. Again it went unnoticed by most since everyone was up in arms about the election theft on May 31st and things were moving so fast with over 200 blog posts daily.

  12. 30 susan h October 15, 2009 at 7:51 am

    This is an article from 2004, right around the time Obama was to enter the Senate in Illinois. It is entitled: “Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate.”


    Sometime between his becoming senator, the DNC decided that they would forget about his foreign birth and run him as a presidential candidate, hoping no one would be paying attention to the rules, or if anyone was, they were perfectly planned to break ALL the rules to get a democrat in the White House.

    • 31 Delle October 15, 2009 at 10:23 am

      Susan, you beat me to it.

      I just found that site came here to Dr. Kate’s to post it for you all to see.

      It’s really something, isn’t it?

      • 32 drkate October 15, 2009 at 9:33 pm

        Yes, quite something! There are other articles as well, all about the same time, all frm Africa, all talking about kenyan born obama. One article is recent talking about obama v mccain!

  13. 33 Katie October 15, 2009 at 11:11 am

    GULP. If this is true, the CC 2009 is too late.

    Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord
    Published on 10-15-2009

    Source: Fightin’ Words

    The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.

    A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

    Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

    At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

    I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

    How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.


    And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

    So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

    But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

    So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

    Sail on, O Ship of State!

    Sail on, O Union, strong and great!

    Humanity with all its fears,

    With all the hopes of future years,

    Is hanging breathless on thy fate!


    • 34 Quantum Leap October 15, 2009 at 12:06 pm

      Oh My God.

      Obots you suck for voting this prick into office…

      Now I have been saying, we need divine intervention.
      This is psychological and spiritual warfare.

      Pass this around please.
      Prayer Clocks This can be Done.
      There is no don’t that America is vastly moving in the wrong direction. But first and far most we need to call on God’s help. We had a very productive meeting of the New Iberia Louisiana Tea Party group. It was suggested that we setup a prayer clock. Set some thing up all around the United States of America. We all can take part in this.
      We need to add names to the clock so somebody would be praying around the clock. WE need to put God first. We can win the battle if we stand together and pray. Remember it is a spiritual battle between good and evil now that is going on. Can we do it YES WE CAN! Let us come together as Christians first. Then every other thing will fall in line.
      Come before the thrown of God with our Petition of pray. Prayer Warriors it’s time to raise to the occasion once more. Anyone wanting to get involved with this please let me know. You can take part in this by setup your own prayer clock in your town or city. It’s time to stand in prayer for America as our fore fathers done so many many years ago.
      Thank You,
      Lynn Dartez

    • 35 Miri October 15, 2009 at 1:00 pm

      Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate, do they not? Are there enough patriots left in that “august” body?

      • 36 Delle October 15, 2009 at 2:56 pm

        He cancelled the missiles in Poland without the approval of the senate – which he should have had. GW had senate approval when he promised them.

        This man doesn’t care about such minor details.

      • 37 Katie October 15, 2009 at 4:26 pm

        And the CIC is required to be a natural born citizen…

        I’m not feeling all that confident that ANY laws are being adhered to these days.

  14. 38 bho boo October 15, 2009 at 11:14 am

    Victims of tyranny are not to be oppressed forever without consequence!


  15. 39 susan h October 15, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    Orly Taitz fined $20,000 for filing frivolous lawsuit:


    • 40 bho boo October 15, 2009 at 7:06 pm

      She must press charges against Clay Land’s outrageous abusive tyrade of unconstitutional unprofessional lunacy.

  16. 41 ramjet767 October 15, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    Save copies of all these pages below before they disappear from the net. And, it is time for concerned Americans to write letters to all the Judges in all the cases and attach copies of these pages showing Kenyan born Obama such as these examples:

    Published In Kenya:

    Published In Uganda:

    Published In Nigeria:

    The addresses for key judges in key cases are listed at the bottom of this page:




  17. 42 Rosemary Woodhouse October 15, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    Oh! Dear! Kate!

    I don’t know why I seldom check your blog roll, but I just noticed you have Allen West for Congress listed. Thank you! He is a man of honor and integrity. One need not reside in his district to contribute to his campaign! He is running against the “DNC machine” candidate (and no matter the name of the (D) candidate, in 2010 that means any (R) or (I) runs against Obama!) Lt. Col. West is just what this nation needs.

  18. 43 Talk2ThePaw October 17, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    I think we can forget any glimmer of hope we might have felt in the case of Barnett v Obama.

    Carter shows his ethics: hires lawyer from Obama firm, as clerk Oct. 1st
    October 17, 2009 by John Charlton
    In a stunning blow to the impartiality of the American Judicial system, Federal Judge David O. Carter, who is hearing the case Barnett vs. Obama, has just hired a lawyer who works for a law firm where Robert F. Bauer, one of Obama’s top lawyers is a partner. And that, just days before the Oct. 5, 2009 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, in which his demeanor radically changed, according to Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs.

    Siddharth Velamoor is the lawyer chosen by Carter to serve as one of his two official clerks, from Oct. 1, 2009, till Sept. 30, 2010, according to Wikipedia. Velamoor is listed as an associate with Perkins Coie, LLP’s office in Seattle, Washington.

    Robert F. Bauer, is a partner of Perkins Coie, LLP’s office in Washington, D.C.. His bio at the company identifies him as holding the Chair of the Political Law group at the firm; general counsel to Obama’s Campaign for America and general counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

    Mr. Bauer’s wife is none other than Anita Dunn, the Whitehouse Communication’s Director.

    Since Siddharth Velamoor could ostensibly loose his job or be blacklisted by Perkins Coie, if the case did not go Obama’s way; his presence in Judge Carter’s chambers clearly impugns the integrity of the court, and will be the cause of dismay among the general public.

  19. 45 ILBlue October 29, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    I posted but don’t have time to read tonight..looks very very interesting though so want to wait till weekend when I have more time to concentrate and take it all in, Ha !!!

    Does anyone ever see Georgia Peach anymore from TD Blog?

    And does anyone know where Radio Patriot Blog went? Not sure why you don’t list it on your blog roll since she always lists name of your new articles and links on her blog ? It was very easy for me to copy the title and link from there and post to twitter.

    Now the site says it’s gone?? Did someone destroy that blogger site? Please let me know if anyone knows where it might be.

    It was a good site for listing links with newest articles etc from numerous blogs. I think the name of blogger was Andrea (King? )

    Thank you Dr. Kate and everyone else 🙂

  20. 49 ILBlue November 7, 2009 at 6:21 pm


    Please don’t go away again… U know where I am.. help me on twitter it will be helpful to me and other Patriots and our Country . That’s what it is about you know , saving OUR COUNTRY..

    U know how to DM / talk about or not ( you know what I refer to ) . doesn’t matter , I value you as a person and need your help.


  1. 1 Twitter Trackbacks for Tyranny in America: The Judiciary « drkatesview [drkatesview.wordpress.com] on Topsy.com Trackback on October 14, 2009 at 12:15 pm
  2. 2 So, the Constitution is up for a vote? « drkatesview Trackback on October 22, 2009 at 12:22 am
  3. 3 A Lesson from Samuel Chase « drkatesview Trackback on December 16, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Comments are currently closed.

October 2009
« Sep   Nov »

Recent Comments

Get Your Copy at drkatesview@gmail.com

All Pets Haven

Blog Archives

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!

Since 8/15/09


Listen to drkate’s Revolution Radio

RSS Big Government

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

RSS American Thinker

  • 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

%d bloggers like this: