The Solution IS the Constitution

©2009 drkate

Oh beautiful, for spacious skies...

1024.heilman.big.sky.montanaI left my home in Wyoming’s western mountains at 10 pm on Tuesday night…drove through the  clear, star-studded night- with night owls, bison, white jack rabbits trying to hide in the snow, and elk gracing my journey…the night is when the big game come out.  The 10,000 foot pass was as quiet as it could be, save the sounds of the forest alive at night.  I have always felt, driving through the woods at night, that I was passing through someone’s ‘living room’….and it is true that I am.

For amber waves of grain

amber-waves-of-grainCrossing the border into Nebraska, I was greeted at sunrise with miles and miles of wheat  fields and a clear, cloudless sky.  I loaded the book in my cd player, “The 5000 Year Leap: The 28 Great Ideas that Changed the World”. Although any book on tape is necessary when driving in Nebraska to keep oneself awake, this was a particularly poignant book to listen to this delegate traveled to the Continental Congress 2009.

While the sun was rising as I drove, the words I listened to asked a question: would Ben Franklin see our nation today as a rising sun, which he thought in 1787, or would he see a nation in decline, and therefore a setting sun?

Indeed, we have not followed the admonition of our Founding Fathers:

A people must from time to time refresh themselves at the well-spring of their origin, lest they perish.

The 5000 Year Leap reminds us of our Founders’ words, and how we have forgotten, needing to re-member ourselves with our Country:

A frequent recurrence of the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantage of liberty, and to maintain a free government (Massachusetts Bill of Rights, 1780)

We have

…elected some of the most undesirable persons to high office.  “Effective resistence to usurpers is possible only provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them…(The Federalist, No. 28, Alexander Hamilton)

For purple mountains, majesty

While the Founders more than acknowledged and believed in God and divine providence, and were aware of that influence on their proceedings, they nevertheless did not legislate God, or sanction state religions

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

purple mountainsOur Country was established as a nation of laws, not of men.  Yet each of the founders had profound trust and belief in God, the Creator. The Founders:

…vigorously affirm throughout their writings that the foundation of all reality is the existence of the Creator, who is the designer of all things in nature and the promulgator of all laws which govern nature…

John C. Fitzpatrick compiled the writings of George Washington who, more than anyone, understood the role of divine providence in winning the revolutionary war.  In his first inaugural address, he said:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.  Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some toke of providential agency

Above thy Fruited Plain

It was in Jamestown, in 1607 that the first ideas began to emerge regarding free enterprise systems, as

the community’s experimentation with communal economics were found to ‘be worse that Plato had described them.’

fruited plainThe settlers’ principles eventually were articulated in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.  Importantly, it was in Virginia that a sufficiently large enough population was congregated to establish a popular assembly of legislative representatives, and the descendants of these settlers structured the framework for the United States of America.

America, America, God Shed His Grace on Thee

We were blessed with the wisdom of very fine, well read, and thoughtful Founders. Yet, a great deal of responsibility for freedom lies with we the people.  Sam Adams said

But neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.  He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chose into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man….

Jefferson and many other Founders believed strongly in an educated public, and using education to encourage the development of leaders steeped in the knowledge of the Constitution.  Peter Marshall, in his book The Rebirth of America, is clear:

The choice before us is plain, Christ or chaos, conviction or compromise, discipline or disintegration….The time is come, it now is, when we ought to hear about the duties and responsibilities of our citizenship…

Jefferson wrote in 1816:

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and will never be”

And Crown thy Good with Brotherhood, from Sea to Shining Sea..

The Founders’ monumental task was structuring a government with all the power in the people.  Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap

sea_to_shining_seaWe are fortunate that the Founders had such a breadth and depth of information to work with- looking at all the civilizations of the past and framing one for the future.  John Adams actually had envisioned a  country with “200-300 million freemen”…and contrary to what some will say, the words of the Constitution were chosen carefully and have meaning today.

They had a different measuring stick for power than we have today.  And their primary criterion was to maximize the people’s power, or the people’s law.

Anarchy ———————–Tyranny


No law —–People’s Law—–Ruler’s Law

On this scale, it is easy to measure Congress’ actions.

Above thy fruited plain

40 Responses to “The Solution IS the Constitution”


  1. 1 kay November 13, 2009 at 4:35 am

    I soooooo LOVE you Dr.Kate….they just don’t come better then you Gal!
    You are the TRUTH!!!!!
    GOD Bless You an OUR America!

  2. 4 kay November 13, 2009 at 4:51 am

    And LameCherry…You Rock!!!!

  3. 5 Papoose November 13, 2009 at 6:01 am

    Pretty and Awesome!

    Like you, DrKate, pretty awesome!!

    What a great way to start the day. Inspired, again.

  4. 6 Yousaidit November 13, 2009 at 8:20 am

    You said it…again. The Constitution…now that is our HOPE, and we have to make sure no usurper gets to CHANGE it.

  5. 7 azgo November 13, 2009 at 8:37 am

    Thank you, drkate,

    Let us by wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties. JAMES MONROE (1758-1831), U. S. President, First Inaugural
    Address, 4 March 1817.

  6. 9 Susan November 13, 2009 at 10:11 am

    Plalm 109:8
    “Let his days be few; and let another take offiec.”
    Amen to that, and God bless America.

  7. 10 wrong again November 13, 2009 at 10:41 am

    “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him”
    (Deuteronomy 18:22).

    We can all do that.

    • 11 jbjd November 13, 2009 at 12:30 pm

      Yes; so we all can. But getting back to your original post… Even assuming the IN court had so ruled as to the definition of NBC, the only basis on which BO claims to be a “native” citizen is his heavily redacted posted-on-the-internet COLB. No court would rule this constitutes “evidence” of anything. So, on what basis did NP swear to state election officials, BO is Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS, to get them to print his name on the general election ballot? (We asked her; she refused to respond. Read the VA or GA complaint of election fraud posted on the front of my blog. And just answer that one question… http://jbjd.wordpress.com)

  8. 12 d2i November 13, 2009 at 11:51 am

    What a beautiful post, drkate. The description of your travels across the majestic parts of our beautiful United States was heartwarming and hopeful. Thank you.

    It IS the Constitution! Always has been. Always will be. Bless you and the rest of the patriots who dare to stand up for this greatest of nations at the 2009 CC.

    Stay safe and watch out for those dark forces whose only desire in life is to ridicule and shame. We must have faith their little minds and little worlds will actually grow up someday.

  9. 13 tminu November 13, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    They did not “Rule” idiot, this was an opinion attached to another dismissal, right up there with the “twitter” opinion in credibility.

    By any stretch of your anyone’s, save for your delusory imagination does this ever overturn the at least seven SCOTUS precedent RULINGS and HOLDINGS which prove that a natural born citizen is born of two US citizens on US soil.

    Say “nice try” to your fellow enemies of America, but no cigars.

    • 14 tminu November 13, 2009 at 12:32 pm

      And this “opinion” just came out yesterday, and is filled with political give-aways as to its biased motivations. It’s, as they say in the vernacular, “CRAP”.
      You know how they arrive at their opinion? They use falsehood premises.
      No sorry, that is not a SCOTUS precedent, it’s another tripe opinion (not ruling) coinciding with another bogus dismissal based on standing. See, Obamites cannot allow proper judicial scrutiny, instead they rely on tripe dismissals and opinions about “twittering” and such. And WTF it was published yesterday? Freeking yesterday?? What contrived horse shit (sorry). Minor and WKA ARE SCOTUS precedents. Let’s see you show a finding, a ruling, a jury verdict, then we’ll talk.

      Your made-up tripe is proven wrong by Bingham’s definition of NBC in the Congressional Record, by the definition given in Minor, that a Natural Born Citizen is jus soli jus sanguinis both parents. And WKA even as your .pdf quotes, says WKA was a mere “Citizen”, never does WKA say he was a natural born citizen. Never. No. Sorry. And given WKA was written by a judge appointed by the other usurper Arthur, his language would’ve, if he could’ve, but even HE didn’t. Oh no he di-int. UCONN and other extensive historical research proves that Chester Arthur hid his non-NBC status, so he is not precedent.

      The bottom line is the 14th defines Citizen, and does not define Natural Born Citizen. It’s just not there, too bad so sad. And Minor says it’s not there, and so does Article II. And Article II says mere Citizens are ineligible. G’head, amend the Constitution as Obamites tried to to lay the groundwork just a few years before illegally installing the usurper. They gave up, as so many have before because “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Nobody wants your made-up definition that anyone born in the USA is a natural born citizen, even a 2nd grader knows that’s tripe.

      Now, let’s whittle your crap OPINION PIECE down to what it is: more crap.
      ————–

      “The Court also cited Justice Curtis?s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856):”
      <>
      “The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, „a natural-born citizen.? It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth.”
      <>
      “Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”
      <>

      “Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 576 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).
      The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:
      All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”
      <>
      “The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”
      <>
      “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. ”
      <>
      “Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15 14”
      <>

      “14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution?s Article II language…”
      <>
      “is immaterial.”
      <>
      “For all but forty-four people in our nation?s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.”
      <>
      “The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
      15”
      <>
      “We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad.”
      <>
      “Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.”
      <>
      “16 We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen.”
      <>

      THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT HAS CLASSIFIED OBAMA’S BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION. So much for Mr. Open and Transparent eh? EH???

      http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2199765

      We grant Obama Hawaiian born status, yet he has not proven such with any bona fides. Even if he was, despite this nonsenical opinion paper published yesterday in Indiana, Other nations know he is an ineligible usurper and they will use that for blackmail or leverage, which endangers the entire country. But since you’re anti-American commies, you love that.

      • 15 tminu November 13, 2009 at 12:39 pm

        Here are the direct contradicting arguments to the “opinion piece”. (wordpress removed all content between so the above had to be redone).

        The bottom line is the 14th defines Citizen, and does not define Natural Born Citizen. It’s just not there, too bad so sad. And Minor says it’s not there, and so does Article II. And Article II says mere Citizens are ineligible. G’head, amend the Constitution as Obamites tried to to lay the groundwork just a few years before illegally installing the usurper. They gave up, as so many have before because “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Nobody wants your made-up definition that anyone born in the USA is a natural born citizen, even a 2nd grader knows that’s tripe.

        Now, let’s whittle your crap OPINION PIECE down to what it is: more crap.
        ————–
        ————–

        “The Court also cited Justice Curtis’s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856):”
        [[Dissenting opinions are not majority opinions. “DUH”]]
        “The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, „a natural-born citizen.? It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth.”
        [[Citizenship may be acquired by place of birth, today. But mere Citizens are precluded from being POTUS and at the time of ratification, place of birth was insufficient for even Citizenship, let alone Natural Born Citizenship. Citizenship at that time was NOT granted by place of birth alone unless a person was a *native* (as in American Indian), indeed the Civil Right Act of 1866 well AFTER the ratification, did not grant citizenship to those with divided allegiances AT ALL!! So the idea that 14th amendment citizenship was granted at the time of ratification is tripe. And to this very minute, naturalization requires one to abjure all other allegiances! Not until the 14th amendment is Citizenship in the US linked only to place of birth and NOWHERE in the 14th is the term Natural Born Citizen used. Nowhere. It’s not there. You can amend the Constitution if you like, but presently, it’s just not there despite your tripe. Natural Born Citizenship means NO OTHER ALLEGIANCES thus it is linked both to soli and sanguinis. Sorry, 14th defines CITIZEN but not Natural Born Citizen, this is supported by Minor and Article II.]]
        “Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”
        [[The principle of public law understood at the time of ratification, was based on La Loi Des Gens / Law of Nations which clearly defined a natural born citizen as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents. This is why Article II allowed mere Citizens to be POTUS if alive at the time of the ratification, because though they may have been born in the US, the country was so new that their parents at the time of their birth, were not US citizens. “DUH”]]

        “Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 576 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).
        The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:
        All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”
        [[Born in the allegiance means no other allegiance. It does not say born in the allegiance of the United States and some other country, just to the United States.]]
        “The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”
        [[Agreed, WKA was a CITIZEN, and if they’d wanted to say he was a Natural Born Citizen, they would have said so. But they didn’t.]]
        “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. ”
        [[So they just spat on what the holding of WKA was, that he was a Citizen, not a natural born citizen. It’s not a SCOTUS precedent case still.]]
        “Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15 14”
        [[A natural born British subject is not the same thing as a natural born citizen. “DUH”]]

        “14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution?s Article II language…”
        [[WELL THANK GOODNESS THEY CAN READ ENGLISH!!]]
        “is immaterial.”
        [[So again, they acknowledge then spit on the holding! This is such filled up septic tank of politically charged nonsense it’s not worth the read!]]
        “For all but forty-four people in our nation?s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.”
        [[True,the ONLY purpose of Natural Born Citizen status is for national security for the office of president, requiring no divided allegiances and no other claims by sovereign nations on that person holding office.]]
        “The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
        15”
        [[Yes, WKA was deemed a US Citizen. But he was NOT deemed a natural born citizen, and he he was, the holding would have said so ESPECIALLY since it compared WKA to the child of citizens which it DID say was a Natural Born Citizen.]]
        “We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad.”
        [[This is glaringly showing its political taint with the McCain angle.]]
        “Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.”
        [[WTF? They’re saying that there are “other ways” to receive NBC status beides being born jus-soli? First off, Craig v. US held that nobody can “receive” NBC status because it’s a state of birth. This smacks again, a politically tainted opinion, not a SCOTUS ruling precedent. What about Obama’s “opinion” as cosponsor of SR511 stating BOTH parents must be US citizens for a child to be a Natural Born Citizen?? LOL would you want to deny your plastic marxist jesus?]]
        “16 We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen.”
        [[First off, Chester Arthur was a BRITISH SUBJECT, and if you think at that time in history that the government or the populace would have allowed an openly-admitted British subject to become POTUS after fighting a BLOODY revolutionary war to rid themselves of such interference…you must be completely insane. Chester HID the fact and this research has uncovered the historical proof of such. If Chester Arthur had openly admitted he was a British subject, that would lay the groundwork for precedence, however he hid the fact that he was born a British subject. This is what makes the Obama precedent so dangerous, it sets the stage for more non-natural born citizens.
        US Government Ruling From 1885 by Secretary of State Thomas Bayard Proves Chester Arthur’s British Birth Was Kept From Public.
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/us-government-ruling-from-1885-by-secretary-of-state-thomas-bayard-proves-chester-arthurs-british-birth-was-kept-from-public/
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/undead-revolution-historical-attack-on-obama-potus-eligibility-part-1/
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/the-holy-grail-of-potus-eligibility-law-review-articles-mr-obama-and-mr-arthur-meet-attorney-george-collins/
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/potus-usurper-chester-arthur-forced-military-to-salute-british-flag/
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/ap-issues-chester-arthur-propaganda-to-protect-obama/
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/open-letter-to-united-states-attorney-jeffrey-taylor/
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/a-little-more-on-chester-arthur-from-the-library-of-congress/
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/ ]]

        • 16 tminu November 13, 2009 at 1:09 pm

          Can you delete the 2nd lengthy post, and put up the one that worked (that’s awaiting moderation)? Otherwise it’s bolstering the Obot’s side since all that shows is the opinion piece, not the rebuttals! When first posted, all content between <> vanished and made it nonsensical.

      • 17 drkate November 14, 2009 at 12:19 am

        BRAVO! Everyone, I am sorry about the spam…was away all day and could not catch it. I want this to be a place of refuge, learning and discussion, no bots who are useless.

        I must say you all handle the bots so well! But I deleted the &^%$#@)(*&!!~ comments and sent the IP to spam.

        thanks for your patience!

  10. 18 Delle November 13, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    Beautiful words; beautiful photos.

    Thank you so much for sharing them.

  11. 19 jbjd November 13, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    Assuming you understand that none of these cases to which you refer was dismissed on substantive grounds but on procedural grounds, please answer the question I asked earlier: on what basis did NP swear BO was Constitutionally qualified for the job? Keep in mind, both BO and his lawyer, Bob Bauer, swore in court pleadings submitted in January 2009, their strongest evidence he is qualified is that COLB he posted on-line AND APFC’s posting of a phantom newspaper birth announcement, unattributed. Don’t believe me? Read the footnote from the Motion to Dismiss they submitted in Hollister, on my blog (“RUMORS, LIES, AND UN-SUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS'”). Why didn’t BO and Bob Bauer tell the Hollister court to take judicial notice of Nancy Pelosi’s Certification of Nomination, for example, the one she had submitted 5 (five) months earlier to election officials in the state of HI,explicitly swearing he was Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS, so they would print his name on the general election ballot in that state? I am not saying BO is not a NBC; I am asking you to answer the question, on what basis did NP swear he is a NBC in August 2008?

  12. 20 jbjd November 13, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    All of those lawsuits were infirm from the beginning. People substituted sound legal reasoning for temper tantrums. The courts rightly would have none of it. So what? Does this mean, BO is a NBC? Hardly. Apples and oranges. You know no better where he was born now than you did before these inform cases were tossed. You only apparently THINK you do.

  13. 21 jbjd November 13, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    Evidently you think substituting your opinion for fact will suffice to answer a straightforward question; or that, calling names substitutes for facts. I am not asking you on what basis you determined BO is a NBC but on what basis NP could have determined he is a NBC. Bringing up words you claim were uttered post Certification, however you misinterpret the meaning of those words, does not answer the question as to what NP used before those words were spoken. Besides, after those words were spoken, BO and his attorneys failed to ascribe these words with the import you do. After all, if those words you interpret to mean, definitively, BO is a NBC; then how can you explain that neither BO nor his attorney asked the federal court to take judicial notice of those words to verify, he is a NBC? Why keep using APFC to authenticate him, when by that time – January 2009 – he could have used both NP’s signed Certification AND those words from HI officials, however he chose to misinterpret their meaning? No; NP cannot have based her findings on words yet to be spoken; and so, you still have not answered my question.

    I told my 9th graders, we asked NP, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, on what basis she Certified BO was a NBC, but she ignored us. ‘Why do you suppose she would not answer our question?’ The students said, ‘She never checked before signing that Certification.’ Then, I told them, we asked the Secretary of the DNC, Alice Germond, who passed on our questions to the DNC General Counsel, Joe Sandler. I said, Mr. Sandler replied, ‘The DNC is not a public agency and so, we don’t have to answer your question.’ Now, the students gasped. ‘What are you thinking?’ They looked at me, wide-eyed. ‘That means, they did check; and he is not qualified!’

    I understand that finding out you have been duped is disquieting; but calling names cannot make you feel any more secure about your wrong choices. Certainly, name calling does not substitute for reasoned discourse. Even 9th graders from the inner city who support the BO Presidency in theory can smell a rat when it comes to circumventing the requirements of the Constitution.

  14. 22 newssleuth November 13, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    Wrong Again,

    If you are truly interested in examining the Natural Born Citizen Constitutional issue you should do some legal research yourself instead of insulting people here who have actually researched, studied, read letters and opinions of our founding fathers and of those who influenced them in their writing of the US Constitution.

    Knowledge is power. Ignorance is weakness. You don’t want to be an ignorant weakling do you? Always “Wrong Again” and again and again and again and again and again….

  15. 23 Ali November 13, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    “…The black man won….”

    — yes, the man won because he is black

    • 24 Ali November 13, 2009 at 8:26 pm

      Actually, I should correct my remark. I don’t think he “won” the nomination nor the election. I think he and his cronies STOLE the nomination from Hillary, and the election was manipulated in his favor. And yes, his appointment was basically that of the first affirmative action “black” potus — the “token black potus”. I find that insulting and pathetic. Don’t you?! People of ALL colors have nothing to be proud of in that respect. His manipulative constant cry of racism — he USED his color as a shield against those who questioned his character and qualifications — he diminished himself, and those who share his color and cast a false cry of racism. He WON NOTHING — WE ALL LOST.

      “…I dream of a day when a man will be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character…”

  16. 27 jbjd November 13, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    notafan, I agree with everything you say about me. Now, can you answer this question, which Nancy Pelosi, Alice Germond, Joseph Sandler, and Wrong Again all refuse to answer: on what basis did NP Certify BO is Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS, to state election officials, in August 2008? Or, can you surmise why NP, AG, JS, and WA would refuse to answer that question? The students came up with their own theories, which I am not in a position to either confirm or deny.

  17. 28 newssleuth November 13, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Notafan,

    Quit jamming your fingers down your throat to make yourself throw up. Do your parents know you have an eating disorder? Are you trying to hide it from them? I hope you don’t think I am joking. You can die from eating disorders.

    I can only imagine why you would think of parenting as a popularity contest. You must be very young. Parents don’t care if they are popular with their kids or not, as you will find out if you live to grow up and are able to have your own kids.

  18. 29 drkate November 13, 2009 at 8:44 pm

    yawn. i am notafan. thanks for dropping by.

  19. 30 Ali November 13, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    O/T We will now be subsidizing the healthcare of all the illegals

    Napolitano Announces Obama Administration Plan to Give Amnesty to Illegal Aliens

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57133

  20. 31 No-nonsense-nancy November 13, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    Dr Kate, thanks for such a beautiful post. I’m going to read that book. It sounds great. Good luck the next couple of weeks. I have been listening to some of the pod casts. It is really interesting. Can’t wait to hear more.

  21. 32 Quantum Leap November 13, 2009 at 9:52 pm

    Let’s face the facts. EVERYTHING about the guy is phoney baloney. EVERYONE knows he doesn’t meet the requirements of natural born citizen. What Hawaii has is just proof (if that) of naturalized citizen. BIG difference. It’s no ones fault but obama’s. Quit blaming. Obots know damned well that liar obama is a fake. They know it. End of story.

  22. 33 Quantum Leap November 13, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    The black man won

    The man who came from the white womb stole the election from Hillary with the help of Pelosi and her gang and the black man one.😆😀
    Liars, crooks and idiots. We don’t argue with idiots. Go throw up in your mouth somemore. It’ll give you something to do. Puke your pea brain out for all I care. Birds of a feather flock together and you are a liar just like barry soetoro obama born of a white mama. Enjoy idiot. Liar.😆

  23. 34 drkate November 14, 2009 at 12:10 am

    lololol. got the facts wrong, AGAIN. sheesh, can’t even be a good obot. lol 🙄

  24. 35 Quantum Leap November 14, 2009 at 1:17 am

    Watch the fake opretendident.
    See the fake opretendident in this NEW picture taken at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia to mark Veterans Day, November 11, 2009.
    Fake pretendident refuses to salute or raise his hand over his heart for the fallen.
    What a pig.

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=4353

    • 36 Quantum Leap November 14, 2009 at 1:27 am

      Why, oh why does he always cradle his ‘junk’ while everyone is saluting or holding hand over heart? WHY?🙄

  25. 37 Quantum Leap November 14, 2009 at 1:32 am

    a perfect universally felt comment reposted from oilforimmigration which I will vision oprendident this way too. ‘Gotta love it. :green:

    I can not even stand to look at this snake in the grass any longer. His feet should not even be touching the sacred soil our forefathers BLED for and our soldiers continue to bleed for. I could retch all over him. His breath pollutes our air. He’s a foul odor. He needs to be thrown on the garbage heap of history and his memory buried forever. His soul is a cesspool. I picture him at the local garbage dump and the dump truck lifting and dumping garbage over his head until he is buried beneath it. I do. I don’t care if it’s sick. He disgusts me no end. I cringe when I see him or hear him open his mouth. I just want to flee as if from an evil spirit. There is something about this man I can not stand.

  26. 39 Don November 14, 2009 at 10:01 am

    I live in California and I have written (2 months ago) and asked pelosi and boxer what documents they used to certify obama as eligible to be President under the Constitution. I have not received an answer yet.

  27. 40 curi0us0nefromthe60s November 15, 2009 at 10:07 pm

    Dr. Kate,

    I’ve been away from the computer for a few days and just got a chance to read this post tonight. What a wonderful piece. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Take care and God Bless with the Continental Congress.


Comments are currently closed.



November 2009
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

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

  • 1,852,964 views

Listen to drkate’s Revolution Radio

RSS The Post & Email

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

RSS Logistics Monster

  • 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!

%d bloggers like this: