The End of Obama

©2010 drkate

A Nation in Distress

(Update: HI Atty. General refuses to corroborate Fukino’s  statement that Obama is a NBC)

During 2009, an unprecedented awakening of Americans came about precisely because of Barack Obama’s behavior, policies, performance, and the radical left agenda he hoisted upon America.  And a poll released recently indicates that Americans want a new President, right now.

To the delusional koolaid drinkers and die-hard democrats marxists, how does it feel to have your vote stolen by a charlatan?  By a child who refuses to tell the truth?

We have daily examples of incompetence and sedition, or acts against the United States as a country or its citizens.  When Scott Brown won, Obama attacked AmericansObama’s Ohio speech was angry, juvenile, and shows an emotionally disturbed man.  When Americans prevent the passage of his aptly-named ‘obamacrypt’, he will attack us again.

Think about how he is attacking:  the savings and investments of millions of people; free speech; education; business; health care; and the economy.  Can you think of anything positive Obama has done for America?  I can’t.  Maybe the Founders should have put something in the Constitution in case the people elected a moron?

And what about the cover ups?  Larry Sinclair, anyone?  How about James O’Keefe? How about Donald Young?  What about the nearly one billion dollars received in foreign campaign funds?

We are closing in on the SOB.  There is already precedent for a court to remove a chief executive if he is not eligible, both on the ballot and after taking office.  Two states, including Arizona, now have eligibility bills before the state legislators, guaranteeing at least in some states Obama will not make the ballot.  And the legal cases keep piling up.

At what point will the judges finally realize they can’t hide anymore? Will we ever have an honest independent media again? And at what point will Obama run out of money to buy them?  When will our military move in to protect America and remove this man,  Lest the people be forced to do so themselves?

Debt as a percent of gdp




56 Responses to “The End of Obama”

  1. 1 azgo February 3, 2010 at 12:05 am

    Yeah!… for Arizona and I hope the ballot eligibility laws will catch on in other states!

    Speaking of new laws,a couple of Congress people introduced a new Constitutional Amendment to overturn the recent Supreme Court decision.

    “Amendment language:


    H. J. RES. ___
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.


    Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland (for herself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on __________________


    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:


    ‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.
    ‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’.”

    Gonna be a busy year …
    Great post drkate! I’m ready for a new president!

  2. 2 terminu February 3, 2010 at 2:22 am

    tick tock tick tock
    the truth has a life all its own

    by the way, I read Jimmy Swaggert’s wife’s radio talk show which reaches over 12 million is actively engaging the natural born citizen issue, which is creating exponential interest as people learn the truth.
    Obama was a British Citizen by Descent, because his father and grandfather were British Citizens by Birth. His chance to choose Kenyan citizenship by the Kenya Independence Act of 1963 was superceded by the British Nationality Act of 1983 which effected his citizenship as British before age 23, the expiration of his time window to choose to become a Kenyan citizen. And so to this day, Obama is still a British Citizen. If he was born in Hawaii, he may be a dual British-American, but now that the HI attorney general refuses to corroborate Fukino’s statement that Obama is a natural born citizen born in Hawaii, he may simply be just a British citizen…UNLESS he chose to be Kenyan, which he could have done then no matter where he was born he is only a Kenyan because Kenya does not allow dual citizenships. Further, Obama was in Kenya in 1981, and could have chosen his Kenyan citizenship then.

    Get the word out…in no case can he possibly be a natural born citizen.

  3. 3 ksdb February 3, 2010 at 8:06 am

    terminu, the one problem with your scenario is that the only way Obama can be British or Kenyan is if his birth was registered in Kenya within a year after he was born. Also there are big problems with Barak Sr.’s marriage to SAD being invalidated by his previous marriage to Kezia. Under British law, only the first marriage and its offspring would be recognized as legitimate. The question then is whether Obama is considered natural born as the bastard child of a legally unwed mother.

    • 4 terminu February 3, 2010 at 4:05 pm

      See below, the BNA1948 did not require registration for children born of British Citizens by Birth (or Subjects) as was Obama’s father (and grandfather). Obams is 3rd generation british.

  4. 5 jtx February 3, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Actually, Obama’s whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction.

    If you’d like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly, contain a wealth of factual data – more than we’ve seen from Obama.

    In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like “Our Boy” and really strikes a chord.

    Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC – but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us: Three Little Words Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

  5. 6 DiamondTiger February 3, 2010 at 10:14 am

    The graph shows it all…

  6. 7 tiger7 February 3, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Again, veeery interesting!!–If BHO were indeed the illigitimate son of an American mother who was not old enough to bestow citizenship, then his stepfather, Soetoro, would have provided Indonesian citizenship in order to send him to school in Indonesia.
    Yes, the political sharks are beginning to circle and they are most likely Democratic sharks. With a President as inept and as out of touch as this one, the average politician will try to distance himself from him. The Reps. have been too timid to address the elligibility question but now the issue may well be brought up by Dems. who can’t afford Obama’s baggage.
    Tick, tock for sure!!

    • 8 TDR February 3, 2010 at 8:15 pm

      I am wondering if he will fall from within…notice how he talks to the dems…like they are children…i would be who would throw themselves under the bus for this guy and end up on the wrong side of history. He thinks all dems are progressives and well they may be…BUT they are also americans, which he is not. Blood is thicker than water. There will be closed door sessions I am sure.

      Tick, tock.

  7. 9 terminu February 3, 2010 at 11:01 am

    ksdb, no the British Nationality Act of 1948 defies your assertion, for in no way is it necessary for a marriage to have taken place at all! The ONLY stipulation is that the child be the son of a British Born Citizen (at the time it was called a Born Subject), as were both Obama’s father and grandfather. So when Obama was born in 1961, he was, by BNA1948, a British Citizen By Descent. To this day, he is still a British citizen.

    The BNA 1948, BNA1981, KIA 1963 are all available online.

    • 10 terminu February 3, 2010 at 11:06 am

      You’re confusing registration, required when ther’s citizenship by a father who was by descent, whereas Obama’s father was a citizen by BIRTH.

    • 11 terminu February 3, 2010 at 11:09 am

      If Obama’s father had only been a citizen by descent himself, he could not given Obama Jr. British citizenship without registration.
      But since BO Sr. and Onyango were fully Born British Citizens, their descendants (if born outside of britain or a colony of britain) were by law automatically British Citizens by Descent. If Obama had been born in Kenya, then he was also born a British Citizen by Birth…the difference now is irrelevant since the BNA of 1981 gave him full British citizenship before the age of 23.

      • 12 ksdb February 3, 2010 at 4:23 pm

        You need to read closer:

        Section 32 of the BNA 1948 says: “(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child …”

        British law only recognizes the offspring of the first marriage, not second marriages.

        Part II, rule 5 (applies to both citizenship by birth or descent) of the BNA 1948 says: “(b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; …”

        If Obama wasn’t registered, he’s not a British citizen. If he’s not legitimate, he’s not a British citizen. Under the known circumstances, there’s little indication that British law would recognize him as a citizen.

        • 13 terminu February 3, 2010 at 5:16 pm

          Sorry but Obama himself published twice that he was born under the governance of the British Nationality Act of 1948, which would not have been the case per your false assertions that he was stateless via paternity.

          Further Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann’s divorce decree prove a marriage, and BNA1948 does not alter Kenyan laws allowing polygamous marriage for males. Meaning, English law recognized the marriage.

          “There is no definition of “legitimate” in the Act. However, legal advice
          suggests that English law, in considering questions of legitimacy, will look to
          the law of the domicile of the father at birth. If that law treats a child as
          legitimate, then English law will likewise recognise that status (Hashmi -v-
          Hashmi [1972] Fam 36).”

          A child is treated as legitimate by English Law if the parents believed themselves to be married. 2.2.7
          “It may be appropriate to assume reasonable
          belief in other cases (e.g. on the part of a woman married
          in a country whose law permits polygamy).”

          • 14 ksdb February 5, 2010 at 8:08 am

            Barak Sr.’s marriage to SAD wasn’t polygamous nor was his marriage to Kezia. British law ONLY recognizes polygamous marriages IF they’re legal where they take place. SAD and Barak Sr. married in Hawaii where a polygamous marriage is illegal, so no, British law does not recognize this as a polygamous marriage. Barak Sr. lied to both women. Neither went into their marriages under the pretense it would be a plural marriage, much less a legal plural marriage.

            The child of a bigamous marriage is not recognized as legitimate under British law. Sorry, the little bastard might by virtue of illegitimacy be a legitimate president.

            • 15 terminu February 5, 2010 at 10:06 am

              There’s no record of where the marriage occurred, only a divorce.
              Seems you’re bent on refuting Barack himself who stated that he was born British. He does admit things, stupidly at times, such as cosponsoring SR511 wherein he admits both parents must be US citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen.

              This is a branch which, although interesting, is irrelevant to OUR country’s requirements which are that both parents be US citizens. Obama was only born a statutory citizen, and no statutory citizen since ratification is eligible.

              • 16 ksdb February 6, 2010 at 2:54 pm

                The divorce record states where the marriage took place. We can only take that at face value, but if true, then there’s no way it was a ‘polygamous’ marriage.

                As for disproving Barry, he’s never personally stated that he’s a British citizen. But even if he did make a personal statement, it doesn’t mean that he’s right. The citation itself is from FactCheck which already stated the wrong facts about how old he had to be to maintain his British or Kenyan citizenship.\

                As for being a statutory citizen … this is a poor argument because ALL citizenship is statutory. Citizenship is not a ‘naturally’ exisiting concept. It has to be defined all with the country and how it is statutorily defined.

              • 17 terminu February 6, 2010 at 6:01 pm

                Barry admits that he was born under British governance also on “Paid for By Barack Obama” fightthesmears. He’s an idiot and admits he’s ineligible in SR511 and Feinstein’s bill by virtue of cosponsorship.

                Not all citizenship is statutory, obviously, since NBC is not anywhere in the 14th or USC1401, never has been, and its is the only omitted permutation, and the Constitution and precedents such as Minor state that it’s not in the 14th which guides statutory US Citizenship.

                Again, ksbd seems you want him to not be British and to be a NBC, both based on bogus premise.

              • 18 ksdb February 7, 2010 at 12:37 pm

                Yes, all citizenship is statutory. There is no such as natural citizenship because there are no such things as natural countries. At some point, there have to be legal pronouncements by people to declare territory and subsequent citizneship.

                Second, the only thing I want is the truth. We can’t presume Obama is British when we don’t know if his parents were legally married and if his birth happened in or was registered in Kenya. The declaration about British/Kenyan citizenship from FactCheck was to prove he didn’t have it because it expired. Obama didn’t cite the FactCheck article to prove he was British but to prove he wasn’t still Kenyan. The problem is that if he wasn’t legitimate at birth, he had neither citizenship. Evidently, he thinks he can fool more people by being legitimate with expired dual/triple citizenships.

            • 19 drkate February 7, 2010 at 12:40 pm

              ksdb, ‘all citizenship is not statutory. A natural born citizen needs no statute or act of law to make him so.

              Obama has a british/kenyan father. He naturally derives his citizenship from his father. There is proof they were married because there are divorce papers. Whether he is still a Brit is not so uncertain as you think.

              But no matter, he is not a Natural Born Citizen and can never be.

              • 20 terminu February 7, 2010 at 2:34 pm

                yes, no matter
                no point getting wrapped around the axle about the British/Kenyan/Indonesian citizenship, for natural born American citizenship has requirements at the point of birth…
                that both parents be US citizens and the child born on US soil
                it’s the only omitted permutation in all the definitions of statutory citizens, because NBC is not a statutory citizen

              • 21 ksdb February 7, 2010 at 10:54 pm

                Sorry, Dr. Kate, but you need to statutes and acts of law to define a country, the citizenship of parents, how to recognize a legal birth, paternity, maternity, etc. Obama can’t derive any citizenship from his father if he’s not legitimate and if his parents’ marriage was not valid. It doesn’t matter if there were divorce papers when the marriage itself was not legal to begin with.

                • 22 drkate February 7, 2010 at 11:34 pm

                  @ksdb 10:54 pm feb 7. No, you don’t. And this is the last time before I put you into moderation, as I will not stand for rehashing basic stuff which you should know and not be argumentative about. This is my blog. If you want to argue basic stuff that my readers are completely familiar with and do not have time to respond, go somewhere else.

                  The law of nations, of natures god, natural law, assures citizenship is passed on from the father. Read apuzzo’s site for more information. It hs nothing to do with his mother, his indonesian stuff, his supposed birth in HI. DAD is the giver. And what do you suppose the founders meant by ‘natural born’ when there were NO statutory constructions then?

              • 23 terminu February 7, 2010 at 11:46 pm

                The only pertinent factor is that Obama Sr. was not a US Citizen.

  8. 24 No-nonsense-nancy February 3, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Whatever country he is a citizen of, let’s get him out of our Oval Office very soon! We can’t afford to have him in there any longer!

    • 25 terminu February 3, 2010 at 11:56 am

      If he was born in Hawaii and did not choose Kenyan citizenship, he was born US/British, and still is (if he was not adopted by Lolo Soetoro). If he was adopted then he is only Indonesian.
      If he was born in Hawaii and chose Kenyan citizenship by age 23, he’s only Kenyan.
      If he was born in Kenya, he was born only Kenyan, and if he was adopted by Lolo, he’s only Indonesian.

      In no scenario is he a natural born citizen of the USA, for he always has some other citizenship besides American. And remember the citizenship AT BIRTH is the ONLY pertinent piece of data, although it makes it more damaging that he possesses these foreign citizenships to this day.

  9. 26 tiger7 February 3, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    No matter how you slice it, this dude is toast—We just need someone to pull his plug. If the whole election process were to be declared illegal due to misrepresentation, would McCain and Palin be the ones?? Bumbling Joe would be a party to the illegality and so would Palosi–what a kick in ass that would be!!

  10. 27 Ryan February 3, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    “Maybe the Founders should have put something in the Constitution in case the people elected a moron.”


    • 28 KJ February 3, 2010 at 8:43 pm

      There is a provision in the Constitution (25th Amendment) that allows for the removal of a President due to disability. A certain number of high officers in the government must sign a petition for removal.

      Being a “moron”, or mentally ill would be grounds for removal under this provision.

  11. 30 d2i February 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    dk – the end game for 0 needs to arrive and soon. But we also need to get rid of the Bushies, Clintons, his entire cabinet and any member in Congress that voted for any of his bills. Moreover, we need to toss the R’s out who colluded and continue to cover up their deal on eligibility. Tired of them all and they all must go!!! The sooner the better.

  12. 31 speedy February 3, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    I sure hope that we can see the end of the rein of this tyrant usurper real soon. He wants to be a dictator and he is a childish one at that who throws a fit if he can’t get his way. He is against us and not for us. What kind of “president” is that for our country? All of a sudden now Rassmussen has his polls up. Who the heck are they talking to? Bo is an ineligible treasonous fraud who should be removed from office ASAP and nullify what he has done whatever can be possibly salvaged of what is left of our economy since he usurped the office and is destroying our country more and more each day and telling lies to appease his fans.

    • 32 TDR February 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm

      You make a good point about nullification. For all chicken politicians, if you think we can vote him out fine, but the only way to undo the damage is to nullify him and his agenda.

      Political correctness killed the US, no one wants to hear the ugly truth….

      Guess what…your problems don’t go away, they only get bigger.

  13. 33 don in california February 4, 2010 at 12:49 am

    The main problem, as I see it, is that no official will address Natural Born Citizen, they all talk about citizen, which is different from Natural Born. They are the same, except a citizen can not be President, only a Natural Born Citizen can be President.

    What do you think our Founding Fathers would say if they knew we had a British Subject sitting in the White Houst?? Maybe some of those denying the NBC problem, they could explain why the Constitution has an exemption for our Founding Fathers since they were not NBC.

    • 34 terminu February 4, 2010 at 6:57 am

      They can’t, and won’t explain why. They just insult and lie.

      Here’s the Seattle Times response:

      Seattle Times: The Constitution Is A Conspiracy editor in chief

      Mr. Birdwell:
      I would like to contribute a well-referenced and succinct article about presidential eligibility. As I notice a glaring omission of this subject matter, I would like to assist you in making the subject understandable to your readers.

      Thanks, Ms. M.
      We have published such material, although not recently. Obama’s eligibility for the presidency concerns a tiny fringe of our readership. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a nonissue. I’d rather use our limited space on other coverage.
      Thanks again. Birdwell

      Mr. Birdwell: We both know that it’s not a non-issue, and that the 49% of voting Americans who doubt his eligibility are not a “tiny fringe” group, and that far more Americans would grasp the meritorious Constitutional issues before our country if the media was not constrained. Anyone who dismisses the Constitution as such garbage, have no right to ask any protections from it for themselves or their own families.
      I challenge you to let the truth see the light of day and let the readers decide. Even in as liberal a state as Massachusetts, “the people” can be counted on to think on their own. Why not give the opportunity in a very small dedicated space, to a succinct analysis? I promise nothing but the truth and ample references, in a very short article.
      Perhaps you do not grasp this critical issue yourself. Indeed speaking with various Senators’ and Congresspersons’ representatives, they do not really dispute the ineligibility any longer per se, rather they emphasize that nothing can be done about it now, and think that it does not matter.
      I argue that it does matter, and the Constitution is critical to the construct of our country.

      Do you believe that the Constitution matters, Mr. Birdwell? If you say that you do, then you owe it the respect of analysis of the situation at hand. If you do not, you will have contributed to its destruction and that of our Constitutional Republic, which only exists at all, due to that contract.

      Ms. M:
      49 percent? You’ll have to provide more credible evidence than an automated telephone poll conducted for World Net Daily, the drum beater for the birthers. The problem with such polls is that people who have no tolerance for such conspiracies simply hang up. Their views are not counted.
      The state of Hawaii has validated Obama’s birth certificate. Even the Republican governor of that state says it’s legitimate. That makes Obama an American citizen and eligible to be president.
      The Seattle Times does not promote conspiracy theories. This country has enough problems as it is.
      Thanks for your offer, but no thanks.
      David Birdwell
      Thank you, you just proved the reason for Obama’s ineligibility yourself, but based on your paragraph I am certain you are utterly clueless as to the reason why. You wrote that Obama is a US Citizen.
      The fact is, a statutory US citizen is specifically precluded from eligibility per Article II section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution. That means a U.S. Citizen, defined by the 14th amendment and United States Code 1401, under which Obama’s citizenship definition falls, is NOT eligible.
      A Natural Born Citizen, which is a person born of 2 US citizen parents on US soil, is not a statutory citizen per Article II and Minor v. Happersett. In fact the term Natural Born Citizen is not in US Code 1401 or the 14th amendment at all, consistent with Article II, and its permutation is the only one omitted from USC1401.
      Obama is a third generation British citizen and published this admission twice. His father was a UKC citizen, as was his grandfather.
      When you read Article II you will note that the term Natural Born Citizen is uniquely held separate from “Citizen”, and that the only time in US history that a mere Citizen was allowed to be eligible for the presidency was for those alive at the time of the ratification.
      What’s news is not that Mr. Obama is ineligible, it’s the media malpractice which you validated, which has harmed the American people. They will not be so forgiving as the truth comes to light, and it is, despite you.

      Seattle Times: The Constitution Is A Conspiracy
      How’s that for a title?

      Ms. M.
      I don’t have time for this. Please take your birther lunacy elsewhere. I take great comfort in knowing nothing will ever come of this nonsense. Obama was born in Hawaii. He’s a natural-born citizen. Doesn’t matter who his parents were. All your ideological and/or racist arguments don’t apply. But, hey, don’t take it from me or the countless judges who have dismissed these stupid cases. You’re obviously the smartest person on the planet.
      David Birdwell, Editor
      The Seattle Times

      p.s. NONE of the cases have been adjudicated on the merits, and it DOES matter who his parents were, and Hawaii’s AG refuses to corroborate Funkino’s statement that he was born in Hawaii, and the Constitution is not racist but the Seattle Times IS!

  14. 35 TDR February 4, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Picked this up at CW blog comment post. It is from Orly taitz site:

    Jeff Kuhner on WTNT in DC is going to dedicate an entire show to Obama’s birth certificate issue!
    Just confirmed – its Friday from 12-3 EST
    Jeff Kuhner is calling it a citizen show ! this should be a great show to listen to and possibly call in….
    Listen on line at :

    Hope they cover the whole issue.

  15. 36 swh February 4, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Hi Dr Kate

    Missed your show again last night and don’t have an email address for you to let you know. Went back and took in your show with Red Beckman the 6th of last month, tho and agree… there’s some extremely important stuff there. I’ll need to listen to it again, too… because, like so many, I’ve been too long too hard of hearing. Just wanted to say thanks for the excellence of what you do. swh

  16. 37 Rosemary Woodhouse February 4, 2010 at 11:13 am

    KJ- Is treason disability enough?

  17. 38 Theadora February 4, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Obama took a shot at ‘birthers’ in his speech this morning:

    Do you think it’s getting to him?

    • 39 terminu February 4, 2010 at 12:58 pm

      Seems to me he’s pleading we be civil towards him in not bringing up the fact that he’s a criminal usurper.

      Let me think about that request.

      Umm, no.

    • 40 terminu February 4, 2010 at 1:00 pm

      Or, that he’s terrified someone will shout out that he’s not a natural born citizen.

      Or that he’s doing the obot dance trying to keep the focus away from nbc and onto citizen (more likely this)…just keep the American public confused long enough to destroy the country, that’s all that’s needed.

  18. 41 tiger7 February 4, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    When “The One” begins to mention the unmentionable (birthers) we’re getting to him. I’m not a birther per se –I don’t care where he was born, but his father was not a citizen and his mother was not old enough to provide citizenship.
    As Gandhi said, “first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win”–we’re to the fighting stage now.
    Tick, tock

    • 42 susan h February 4, 2010 at 3:39 pm

      Bill O’Reilly is again saying that Obama was born in Hawaii due to some newspaper articles in Hawaii when he was 3-4 days old announcing the birth. And how could they have known to put that in the paper since he did not know he was going to be president and therefore the whole “birther” question is a non-issue according to Bill. My brother, a loyal democrat, also agrees with that scenario and was trying to convince me of same not too long ago. That’s probably why Obama doesn’t want anyone to listen to the cable news, since someone may “out” him and he wants to discredit all current news stations before the story breaks.

      • 43 Joe The Blogger February 4, 2010 at 8:44 pm

        If one accepted that argument one would have to believe that all of the hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions), who have falsely claimed USA citizenship, were doing so because they wanted to be eligible to be POTUS. After all, why else would anyone want to be a USA citizen?

      • 44 ksdb February 5, 2010 at 8:15 am

        O’Reilly fails to acknowledge two things. The newspaper announcements don’t list Hawaii has the place of birth nor do they list the name of the child. All they do is confirm a birth date and gender of the child as being registered with the state’s vital statistics office. It says nothing about where Barry was born. Second, one doesn’t have to want to be an American citizen solely for the purpose of running for president. O’Reilly’s premise is simply false.

  19. 45 Katherine February 4, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Why does he have to whine and whimper about people talking about his citizenship? All he had to say today was that he is releasing all his records to the American people–like that will happen.
    My thoughts are that his records at Occidental were borderline failing (It was reported that Obama would be embarrassed if records were released.) Furthermore, he didn’t attend Columbia much at all–It has been reported that NO One remembers him attending Columbia. He was able to do this because of PC and foreign money.

  20. 46 terminu February 4, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    Here’s just two of the multitudes of attempted or proposed amendments to the Constitution to allow a citizen, under certain circumstances, to be eligible to be president.
    Now, if a “citizen” were eligible as per the dumbots arguments, there’d be no need for amending the constitution. Since only natural born citizens are eligible, the Obamalings just circumvented the entire document altogether.

    109th Congress (2005-2006)
    To allow non-natural born citizens to become President if they have been a citizen for 20 years
    107th Congress (2001-2002)
    To allow for any person who has been a citizen of the United States for twenty years or more to be eligible for the Presidency

    • 47 ksdb February 5, 2010 at 8:28 am

      I think those are good points, but you can go back even further. If the definition of Natural Born Citizen only means to be native born, then there was no need for the 14th amendment. We know from Shanks v. Dupont that the founders considered it possible to native born in the United States but to be still be a British subject. It said that upon the United States declaring independence that if you remained loyal to the crown you were a British subject or if you adhered to the United States, you were a U.S. citizen, i.e., natural born citizen. By citing British law in governing his own birth, whether he’s right or wrong, Obama clearly falls on the side of the former and cannot be a natural born citizen.

  21. 48 Quantum Leap February 4, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    And a poll released recently indicates that Americans want a new President, right now

    60% to be exact. Stunning.

  22. 52 No-nonsense-nancy February 5, 2010 at 7:51 am

    Thanks, Dr. kate, I’m going to listen to Andrea Shae King today!

  23. 53 tiger7 February 5, 2010 at 8:54 am

    drk– The Post email article is great news—Thanks for the input. It looks like pretty soon BHO himself will be in need of a “corpse-man”. (What a shining example of a Commander-In-Chief who doesn’t know how to pronounce corpsman!!)
    Tick, tock

  24. 54 ksdb February 8, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Dr. Kate, you’re taking this way too personal. Rebut my comments if you can. I’m not going on a goose chase at Apuzzo’s site to try to prove you right. The founders did have statutory constructions of “natural born.” You can see it in the charters of the original colonies. The concept of ‘natural born’ was based on English statutes. The Wong Kim Ark decision acknowledges this several times. Below it talks about how English statutes were extended to the colonies and then within the subsequent states. Neither citizenship nor natural born citzen are natural concepts. They are human, legal constructs.

    “It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called “natural-born subjects.” As that statute included persons born “within any of the King’s realms or dominions,” it, of course, extended to the Colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there. In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were “native-born citizens of the [p662] United States ….”

    • 55 drkate February 8, 2010 at 9:25 am

      Ok, so now we’re talking, at least you cited information.

      However, if it were ths simple and clear, why has not one attorney referred to these cases, in fact refuted them? Why hasn’t this information been put forth in defense of obama?

      The state statutes you cite are irrelevant because the NBC provision only relates to the President, not state officers. If the founders wanted to describe it than anything other than the plain meaning, they would have cited relevant provisions from state laws.

      Regardless, the founders did not intend for this to be so complicated that we couldn’t figure it out. And Obama, the con law professor, figured this out as well, and took advantage of Americans, American law, and the constitution, to force himself in there.

      He needs to be arrested and all of his enablers jailed. Those who refuse to see this threat I hope will hang their heads in shame, and never recover.

    • 56 drkate February 8, 2010 at 9:42 am

      ps, you are out of moderation, my apologies. Kinda had a bad evening last evening. Tho we may disagree I appreciate that you don’t take the insulting stand that many take when they disagree as to NBC.

Comments are currently closed.

February 2010

Get Your Copy at

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 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

%d bloggers like this: