Occams Razor and Presidential Eligibility

©2010 drkate

Occam’s razor (or Ockham’s razor) is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness). The principle is popularly interpreted as “the simplest explanation is usually the correct one”. When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.  It is in this sense that Occam’s razor is usually understood.

As applied to the question of Obama’s failure to produce even one document that affirmatively identifies him as a natural born citizen, the following question applies:

What is the likelihood that Obama is hiding documents that:

  1. are harmless and benign?
  2. contain damaging information?

Separating the two options with a razor, it is clearly door number 2.

Do you see why Obama’s backers had to discredit any search for the Birth Certificate, and why he had to lie to his robots to convince them to defend a worthless electronic image of a forged document?

Obama’s efforts have been to quash the Prima facie evidence of fraud…his birth certificate.

The Natural Born Citizen

From the discussion in these pages and many other blogs, our view into the world of the Founders’ intention as they created the constitution has been very broad and deep.  From this history we know the following:

  1. The President and CIC must have one allegiance, or loyalty to the United States.  Allegiance is determined by citizenship.
  2. For the CIC only,  requirements are that the President be a natural born citizen and born in the United States of two U.S. citizen parents.
  3. The citizenship of a person changes if adopted, and depending on age of adoption, the original U.S. citizenship must be reaffirmed through naturalization by the age of 21.
  4. A naturalized (Fourteenth Amendment) citizen is not the same as a natural born citizen

The one piece of paper that is Prima Facie evidence of meeting the constitutional requirements to serve as President and CIC is the Birth Certificate.   That paper proves his place of birth and citizenship at birth citizenship of the parents, and subsequent actions that effect citizenship.

According to the definition  of ‘natural born citizen which this blog adopts, it doesn’t matter where Obama was born as he has admitted in his books and on his website that his father was British/Kenyan and never was or intended to become an American citizen.   Since citizenship at birth is inherited from the father, by definition, Obama is British, and therefore  is not a natural born citizen. This viewpoint is derived from the analysis of the body of law referred to  as the ‘Law of Nations’ by several scholars, noting that this body of law is cited both in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  John Jay’s letter to Washington, and other documents, as discussed by several excellent sources, also document the effort to craft the CIC”s position as totally immune from foreign influence.  The original language of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 was altered to ensure this.

The primary legal argument against this view essentially refutes the concept of two citizen parents, and insists that NBC means ‘born in the USA’ only, a view advanced by Blackstone and related texts.

Obama’s handlers have fought the disclosure of his birth certificate with everything they have, as it totally exposes the false story of “Obama”, and is enough to remove him immediately from office.  Think of the number of people who will also have to be removed from office…do you think that is why everyone is so ‘ignorant’ and dismissive? duh 🙄

In pursuit of identifying Obama’s deceit, I believe his operations have also infiltrated our own ranks and perhaps stirred up other divisions or at the very least, allowed mixed messages. Think of:

  • the precedent set by dozens of case dismissals based standing and lack of jurisdiction;
  • the huge investment of time in proving the electronic image of the COLB to be a forged COLB, when the burden of proof rests solely with Obama;
  • the continued dismissal of the Birth Certificate as a legitimate issue to pursue even while calling for resignations of Congress and national votes of no confidence;
  • The critique of the defense strategy of LTC Lakin  for not taking the Vatell view of the definition of  ‘natural born citizen’ and focusing on the birth certificate only, speaking widely of perceived consequences of the approach is not taken without discussion of the specifics of military law and Courts Martial that limit the applicability of every judgment.

The key casualty of arguing over which is the best approach  is evidence. Do we forget the need to produce the Prima Facie evidence as we argue the principle?

Where is the NBC Definition Resolved?

Resolution of the meaning of  ‘natural born citizen’ will be in the U.S. Supreme Court, if a case ever gets there.  Of the current cases that are out there, the Kerchner v. Obama and Congress has the best documented record in history of the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’.  There is no other comparable record of this definition in Blackstone or its related texts, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Obama defense team has spent all its time on frivolous strawmen.

Given the record of the judiciary, and our growing collective awareness of the corruption within the system, including the fact that all federal judges are agents of the government, appreciate that there is risk going to the Supreme Court.  But the risk of staying where we are now is far worse, in fact, unacceptable for most of us reading these pages.

In this resolution at the Supreme Court level, evidence will have to be submitted, ergo, the birth certificate and all the other records to ascertain Obama’s citizenship.  But also at the Supreme Court level, the definition of nbc will be argued, the historical texts presented, et cetera, to compliment the evidence in the record.

How Do we Get the Evidence?

Having firmly established what we understand the definition of natural born citizen to be, the work then falls into several categories.  On the definition of natural born citizen, and the failure of Obama to qualify and Congress to vet him properly, the Kerchner lawsuit must be allowed to run its course.  Even if that case does not make it, the court will still have the issue of obtaining the prima facie evidence, as it is a well documented fact that Obama has not proven conclusively he was born in the United States.

As an aside, the attempt to lower the standard for Obama by insisting an (a) electronic image of a (b) COLB was sufficient to prove his eligibility has been a tactic used by his handlers quite successfully. Note that there are two parts of this: acceptance of an electronic image as satisfactory, and the use of a certification of live birth, rather than birth certificate.  Obama is the classic ‘affirmative action’ poseur, where his looks, charm (aackk), celebrity status, and skin color give him a ‘pass’ where no one else would be allowed to.

Berg and Taitz

On the actual evidence of a certified long-form birth certificate, the cases of Berg and Taitz are the most prominent.  Using the tool of ‘quo warranto’, and focusing on the military’s need to know if Obama is eligible for the office, these efforts have tried,but failed to get to the discovery point where documents could be reviewed.

This of course is where we see the precedent developed of dismissal based on standing and witness the potential corruption of federal judges in reviewing this issue.  While we can speculate on the extent to which Obama has threatened these judges, the overwhelming feeling I get is the lack of courage: no one wants to be the first one to tell Obama he is ineligible.  Their careers are more important than the Nation and apparently their conscience as well.  Political correctness on steroids?

And Mr. Berg, to his credit, keeps going.  A march on Washington to demand the birth certificate–the prima facie evidence–is scheduled for October 23, 2010 on the west lawn of the Capitol.  Within this framework, you can join whether you think NBC means ‘born in the USA’ or whether you think it means ‘born in the USA of two citizen parents’.  Either way, we need the evidence.

LTC Terry Lakin

Which then brings us to the case of LTC Terry Lakin.  This is the case of a decorated soldier refusing to deploy to Afghanistan until he sees the evidence that Obama is eligible to give the orders.  What is that evidence?  The birth certificate.  In facing deployment and Courts Martial, the theory of ‘natural born citizen’ is less important than the evidence that Obama was in fact born in the United States.

And what is the opposition’s strategy here?  Just by observation, the strategy is to throw the case out by committing reversible error.  First we have the threat to taze the LTC.  Next the decision by Judge Lind was so unfounded in the law, blatantly so, that it creates ample room for appeal and mistrial.  Where in the law is evidence denied a defendant based on it being ’embarassing’? If Judge Lind knows something about this, then she is in direct violation of Title 18 section 4, misprision of felony, and is abusing her power by denying LTC Lakin’s discovery request.  Judge Lind doesn’t want to be the one to grant discovery either…so she deliberately throws the case.  And I agree with Captain Neil Turner, the JAG’s defending Obama have already committed treason.

Other elements of the military’s strategy against LTC involve the deliberate breaking chain of command through insisting that the Courts Martial order came from the Pentagon, not the Commander in Chief.  And just in time to increase the threat, Obama revises the manual on military courts martial, most likely to eliminate himself from making the direct order.  What does this do?  Make the birth certificate –the prima facie evidence–irrelevant.

The deeper implication of this executive order is that it achieves a breakdown of our institutions, systems, and military command–the goal of any good communist fighting a Constitutional Republic.  Lawlessness on steroids. Remember that Obama does not have the authority to issue executive orders. We need the evidence.

We need to SCREAM BLOODY MURDER over this case, because that’s what it is.  LTC Lakin faces at least four years at hard labor in Ft. Leavenworth if no one knows about what is happening.  Congress needs to be notified, posters need to go up, and people need to talk about this.

Your choice, Mr. Obama.  Produce your birth certificate or sentence a decorated Army officer to forced hard labor.

And if you are legally inclined, time to help with military law, dismissals, appeals…and respectfully, not to argue whether the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is included and correct.

We need the prima facie evidence, as well as for the proper court to hear and deliberate on the constitutional meaning of ‘natural born citizen’.

Other Campaigns

Other campaigns focusing exclusively on eligibility include the Usurpathon, the Stop the Treason Campaign, and the American Grand Jury deliberations.  Reverend Manning has supported the eligibility campaigns of many and has several of his own underway. These efforts are targeting Congress, state, and local officials with their responsibility to investigate Obama’s eligibility.

In this arena, the effort has been to find a way to talk with people about the issue of Obama’s eligibility.  Asking the question ‘can a dual citizen be President’ will almost uniformly produce an answer ‘no’.  That Obama is a dual citizen of course we know, but it was also confirmed by the State Department.  Problems with dual citizenship and the Presidency are described here, but generally the United States ‘tolerates’ dual citizenship but does not recognize or encourage it.  Certainly because of the allegiance (loyalty) requirements of the Presidency, it is doubtful that a dual citizen could  be President of the United States.

An important part of these efforts also include the exposure of Nancy Pelosi’s commission of election fraud, and treason, in 2008 by knowingly falsely certifying Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the Presidency. These opportunities are live, still available to pursue, and are documented here.

State-based efforts to enact legislation requiring constitutional eligibility certification as a condition of ballot access also are underway, with Arizona being the first state to pass such legislation.

It is all about the constitution, and constitutional accountability!

Everyone in this campaign–no matter what your personal definition of ‘nbc’–recognizes the danger the United States is in, and absolute need to remove the usurper from office.  Is every angle covered?  Certainly the efforts underway need increased participation–with laser focus.

This violation of the constitution is so fundamental that in my opinion, it must be addressed immediately with unity and strength.  Absolutely I agree that there is much work to do in so many other areas, the 2010 elections, the fight against legislation, and he building of our state’s sovereignty.  Perhaps the idea of platoons–small groups of people that focus only on eligibility–has traction wherever you are.

Can Occams Razor Be Applied to the Definition of NBC?

Unlike Obama’s refusal to divulge basic prima facie evidence of his eligibility for the Presidency, for which the simple answer is that he is hiding damaging documents,  the concept of  ‘natural born citizen’ cannot so easily be remedied by Occams Razor in my opinion.  Here is the question set up to see if this is true.

What is the likelihood that ‘natural born citizen’ as used in Article II Section I  Clause 5 of the Constitution means:

  1. born in the United States?
  2. born in the United States of two parents who are U.S. citizens?

Can you answer this question simply? Can the general public? It almost certainly requires study!

Those of us who have studied, written about, and absorbed the historical information and legal materials on this definition would probably choose door number 2…precisely because the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used only once in the Constitution.  Why wasn’t just a ‘Citizen’ appropriate for the President?

Those in either branch of Congress who assume its just door number 1 are lowering their standards for the Commander in Chief by accepting a forged, electronic document purporting to be a COLB, not even a birth certificate.  This is unacceptable.  Lucas Smith just delivered copies of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama to every member of Congress, upping the anti: at least Mr. Smith produced paper–a certified copy of a document.  Prima facie evidence–even if you believe nbc means ‘born in the U.S.’?  What has Obama produced?

But Congress could begin an investigation and request the prima facie evidence–the documents–as part of its study.  If it ventured into the definition of ‘natural born citizen’, it is likely that Congress would seek the Supreme Court’s guidance…ergo, all the Kerchner materials are entered into the record.

I personally believe that  the first serious investigation that Congress conducts produces a resignation from Obama. He is then absolutely still fair game for prosecution for crimes against our country, money laundering, bribery, and perhaps the other serious charges he is likely to face.

Moving Forward

On first principle, Obama is likely hiding prima facie evidence because they contain damaging information–his ineligibility for the office he now occupies.

To be sure, the burden of proof rests with Obama to put up or resign, and that must be our demand.  Congress must investigate before it attempts to do any other legislative work for the Nation.  Its a stop work order, Congress, with the exception of the investigation of Obama’s eligibility.

Every branch of the government needs to be permanently protested until this issue is addressed, including the State Department and Supreme Court.  Every single official outside of Washington must be met with the ineligibility sign.

Start with the documents, the prima facie evidence.  Light the fire of information under the Lakin case–before he goes down silently under the radar.   Support in whatever way you can the Kerchner case, and all other efforts to get the Supreme Court to hear and deliberate on the natural born citizen issue.  Find or create direct action.

In 2011, we will remove Barack Obama from the White House.  He won’t finish his term, and won’t be able to run for re-election.  Then our real work begins to walk back the Constitutional violations and dissolve the current network of  poseurs who have taken the reigns.

74 Responses to “Occams Razor and Presidential Eligibility”

  1. 2 Jan September 24, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Thank you Dr. K, fantastic article.
    I personally am writing letters to the editors of local newspapers and sending copies of my letter to my address book.
    I’m asking those in my address book to feel free to copy my letter and send it to their news editors.
    Here is what I wrote:


    Was election fraud committed in 2008 to prevent the discussion of this issue?


    In 2008 Nancy Pelosi certified to 49 states that obama was eligible to be on the ballots to run for President. In the 50th state (Hawaii) Nancy Pelosi certified that obama met the qualifications of Hawaii’s Constitution to run for President in the state of Hawaii. There are two separate notarized documents.

    We currently have a man sitting in the White House calling himself President of the U.S.A.

    Read the Constitution. If you don’t have a copy, you can read it on the Web. You can go to your local library and read it. Read Article II. While you are reading, read the rest of the Constitution, it is short, written so that a sixth grader can understand it. My pocket copy is 34 pages including the Amendments, then read the Bill of Rights.

    The Puppet Masters decided that obama needed to be called our President. There were illegal moves at the DNC and all of a sudden Hillary was out and obama was in.

    Did it strike you as odd that obama took his campaign to Europe? Does it strike you odd that obama is rude to our allies and bows to our enemies?

    The State Department has admitted that obama is a dual citizen. He could even be a triple citizen because of his adoption (if he was actually adopted). He would be Kenyan (British), Indonesian, and possibly American, except his mother was not old enough and the citizenship is passed through the father.

    I don’t care whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii or anyplace else in America, he is a dual citizen and therefore is NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    So, what do we do to remove him from the White House? Congress and Senate need to find the courage to stand up and take back our Constitution, take back our country, throw obama out and have hit arrested along with pelosi, reid, biden, hillary, and all the others that are aware, including the evil press.

    The shadow government, obama and his Czars, are running our country. They are destroying our Constitution, by-passing Congress/Senate by Executive Orders. They are by-passing by turning over their goals to the EPA, FDA, Homeland Security, U.N. and One World Order. Our Congress/Senate all swore an oath to protect our Constitution. Our Military swore the same oath plus swore to protect our country from enemies without and within.

    Write your Congressman and Senators and ask the question; CAN A DUAL CITIZEN BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

  2. 4 CDR Kerchner September 24, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    Hello Dr. Kate,

    Great essay. On the one question you posed in your article …

    Unlike Obama’s refusal to divulge basic prima facie evidence of his eligibility for the Presidency, for which the simple answer is that he is hiding damaging documents, the concept of ‘natural born citizen’ cannot so easily be remedied by Occams Razor in my opinion. Here is the question set up to see if this is true.

    What is the likelihood that ‘natural born citizen’ as used in Article II Section I Clause 5 of the Constitution means:

    1. born in the United States?
    2. born in the United States of two parents who are U.S. citizens?

    Can you answer this question simply? Can the general public?

    One source of the correct answer is found in the writing of the U.S. Constitution and in particular the writing of Article II, Section 1. Hamilton proposed in a draft of the Constitution simple birth in the USA as the acceptable eligibility standard of Citizenship for the office of President. Jay learning of that wrote a letter 5 weeks later to George Washington, the Constitutional Convention’s presiding officer, that a stronger check against foreign influence was needed. Simple birth in the USA to foreign nationals would not provide such a check. Thus Jay suggested that the citizenship status required by elevated to that of a “natural born Citizen”. Thus if Hamilton said born in the USA was the suggested standard, then “natural born Citizen” could not just simply mean born in the USA, otherwise changing it would not be any change at all and would not make it a stronger check to foreign influence. Thus, it is clearer seen by logic that “natural born Citizen” means something more than just born in the USA. The term comes from natural law as codified in the Law of Nations, i.e., it means born in the country to two Citizen parents. A person so born acquires no allegiance or foreign influence on them via birth. That is what Jay was hinting/suggesting to Washington. And that is what the convention accepted and changed the citizenship eligibility requirement for President and Commander of the Armies from simply born in the USA to having to be a “natural born Citizen of the United States”.

    See my essay for more on the history and evolution of the NBC clause in Article II in the U.S. Constitution. I think it answers the above question posed in your article.


    Keep up the good work.

    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al

    • 5 drkate September 24, 2010 at 4:01 pm

      Exactly Charles, thank you so much. You and Atty Appuzzo have been great teachers, and I stand firmly in what you just wrote. I hadn’t known that about Hamilton..and yes, why use ‘natural born’ if it only meant ‘born in the usa’?

      And you too, keep up the good work!

    • 6 thedametruth September 25, 2010 at 9:31 pm

      Charles, as always, excellent comments! So glad you continue to keep up the good work!



  3. 7 drkate September 24, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Good job, Jan! Hope this really wakes people up!

  4. 9 no-nonsense-nancy September 24, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    Dr. Kate, this is a supurb article. You are so brilliant!

    Last evening I went to a meeting of my local 912 group armed with fliers asking the question, “CAN A DUEL CITIZEN BE PRESIDENT? What do you think?” I also made up a nice handout about Terry Lakin to pass out. When I got there nobody was there! I have to find out why nobody came, even the leader of the group. I’ll try some other venue for passing out my things.

    Some thing just has to happen very soon. I hope that everyone anywhere close to DC will go for Phil Bergs’s march. This will be the first big march addressing strictly the eligibility issue. it would be good if Pastor Manning would have his march the same day. I believe he is planning on asking people to go to DC also.

    Jan, you have a very good letter and your ideas are great. We all need to follow your lead.

  5. 10 drkate September 24, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    Excellent read on dual citizenship in the US, still making Obama ineligible:


  6. 11 ARMY D.A.V. September 24, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    Protocol for presidential candidates to provide proof of eligibility to appear on the ballot.

    David Dwight Eisenhower filed his proof of NBC in 1952 .


  7. 12 Helen September 24, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    Tonight is movie night over at The T-Room – http://www.t-room.us, we are unveiling the award winning movie “The Secret of Oz”. Please accept this as an invitation to join us in watching this documentary about our history and her financial challenges and to identify solutions as to how to overcome them.

    When you click on the link, simply scroll down to the Opinion Section and click on the full story. There you will be able to watch this recently released award winning documentary to learn more about our Founding Fathers and those who blazed the trail after them to keep the banking oligarch out of America.

    This is a free documentary so, if you haven’t anything better to do tonight, roast some popcorn, pop a lid off of your favorite beverage and join us at The T-Room to watch this most powerful and telling history of America’s economic system.


    • 13 Tenacity September 25, 2010 at 1:22 am

      Helen, here is Dr. Edwin Vieira’s comment to me regarding the Secret of Oz.

      From: edwinvieira
      Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 11:02 AM
      To: tcdodd Subject: RE: The Secret of Oz.

      I watched it. Madness. Paper money, fractional-reserve public
      banks…madness. I will have NOTHING–
      I repeat, NOTHING–to do with any organization or movement that promotes paper currency and public
      banks of issue. These have been and remain the problem, even in their more insidious form in such public/private fascist cartels and the Federal Reserve System. These scheme
      can never be a solution to anything but the desire of some self-appointed elitists to control everyone else.

      If money is not a commodity, the actual content of each unit of which is scientifically determinable (verifiable or falsifiable), then it is some species of “political” instrument, subject to “central planning”. If the 20th century proved nothing else, it proved that “central planning” does not work.

      He then wrote:

      From: edwinvieir
      Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 2:38 PM
      To: tcdodd
      Subject: RE: The Secret of Oz

      1. What do they mean by the State banks’ “assets”? Actual money on deposit, or other property on which they would lend newly-generated currency? The latter is what the FRS does.

      2. The amount of money in society is irrelevant. Prices will adjust to any amount (or changing amounts). Which is more reasonable: letting the market change prices of goods and services in relation to a relatively fixed amount of money, or letting bureaucrats and bankers try to figure out how to change the supply of money in relation to an ever-changing array of goods and services? (And we know that the latter is not which the money-managers do.)

      3. When gold and silver are money, there are no “prices” of gold or silver. There are prices of goods and services in gold and silver. As soon as you start talking about the “prices” of gold and silver you are assuming something else is the currency (i.e., the thing in which gold and silver are “priced”).

      4. If people can obtain gold and silver only (i) by mining it or (ii) by exchanging real goods and services for it, how can anyone “corner” the supply? Who has enough real wealth to do that? And assume that they did to some significant degree–what would they do with the gold and silver they hoarded? Eat it? As they removed metal from the market, prices would adjust, so the market would not be dependent upon the hoarders. If they wanted to take advantage of those adjustments (which would increase the purchasing power of the gold and silver in the market) they would have to bring their hoarded gold and silver back into the market.

      5. There are reasons beyond economies of scale for introducing a competing currency at the State level.

      For those who really wish to understand the topic. here is some excellent information:
      Colorado Honest Money Bill found at
      After reading it closely, you should examine Vieira’s detailed rationale for drafting this legislation (Parts 1–3 below).
      Part 1 http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin8.htm
      Part 2 http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin9.htm
      Part 3 http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin10.htm
      Here is a show/interview I did with Dr. Vieira about a year ago: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotsheartnetwork/2009/07/17/lets-talk-liberty

  8. 14 jane September 24, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    Now we have proof that Hawaii Democratic Committee refused to certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. So now I wanna know how on earth the SoS-s certified him, based on what, there’s NO probative documentation for him anywhere, so HDC didn’t want to be guilty of treason and refused to certify…but that didn’t stop Pelosi or the SoS-s from putting him on the ballot.

    Just as there’s a Senate Resolution for counting EC votes, is there one for qualifying the candidates? Because QUALIFYING CANDIDATES IS NOT IN THE EC COUNT JOINT SESSION. Here’s where I did a little research…The counting of the electoral votes was not the place qualification would have occurred — I listened to the EC vote count on CSPAN from 1993 and 1997.
    The EC count was strictly for tallying the votes, purpose of opening certificates and ascertaining counts
    When counting EC votes each state says –”Mr. President (the VP pres. of Senate) the certificate of the electoral vote from the state of ____ seems to be regular in form and authentic and itappears therefrom that ____________ received ____ votes for president and _____________ received _____ for vice president. Then the president of the Senate has the EC votes tallied, presented, the state of the vote for president of the United States is as follows…bla bla bla, this announcement shall be DEEMED SUFFICIENT DECLARATION OF THE PERSONS ELECTED PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT IF THE UNITED STATES. Then session is dissolved. I also didn’t hear Quayle or Gore call for any objections, so it wasn’t just Cheney.

    So in no way does the EC vote qualify the elected candidates. A bot was saying that the Hawaii Democratic Committee is not a government body so it doesn’t matter whether they qualified Zero, but precedent points to this being the venue and forum and methodology.

    Usually, the state parties, Rep or Dem, forward a certification of qualification for placement on the ballot to the Secretaries of State, whereby they are taken at their word and placed on the ballot. Now we know that the Hawaii Democratic Committee REFUSED to qualify Obama for placement on the ballot other than by “acclamation” (he was a popular guy), because they had no probative documentation that he was born in Hawaii (or the USA) of 2 US citizen parents. So the Secretary of State then placed him on the ballot after Pelosi herself wrote a letter stating Obama was Constitutionally eligible, but again she had no documentation to that effect, she lied because she has balls so big she needs a wheelbarrow!

    So what I’m trying to ascertain is how the state SoS-s put BO on the ballot without documentation in the various states? AND where is some law or Senate Resolution where this qualification is notate?

    • 15 drkate September 24, 2010 at 7:57 pm

      Terrific work, jbjd will be interested i am sure.

      Now that we know those forms exist, everyone needs to write their Secretary of State for a copy for your state. Then we start filing the complaints! You’ve opened up a new avenue to get this on the state level in fairly high profile.

      Then, I want to see a class action lawsuit…where we the people sue them for dereliction of duty!

      • 16 jane September 25, 2010 at 3:15 am

        Also the state Democratic Committees likely sent certification testimonials and they would need probative court-vetted documents to make such declarations; I wonder if we can see what they said too.

    • 17 jbjd September 25, 2010 at 1:20 pm

      I have been answering these questions on my blog for 2 (two) years now. Indeed, more than a year ago on my blog, I reminded readers that under the Constitution, Congress is not responsible for vetting the President for Constitutional eligibility. NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (1 of 2) and (2 of 2). I pointed out that under both the Constitution and laws passed in the states, the Electors are not charged with vetting the President for Constitutional eligibility. Some state legislatures have passed laws saying only the names of candidates qualified for office may be printed on the ballot; but no state passed corresponding laws requiring anyone to check. The S’soS in those states did not write rules that covered vetting.

      Given that several states passed laws requiring Electors to vote for the nominee of their respective party; states can also pass laws requiring Electors to vet the candidate for Constitutional eligibility. But they haven’t, in the 2 (two) years since the 2008 election.

      Citizens have generally remained ignorant of the political process and how our government works. That’s why in 2012, the people with superior knowledge as to how it works will, undoubtedly, take advantage of their superior knowledge to elect whoever they want. Again.

      • 18 drkate September 25, 2010 at 3:15 pm

        jbjd, glad you responded.

        Everyone, it is never too late to make this work properly.

        • 19 jane September 25, 2010 at 11:26 pm

          jbjd: I think you should summarize in a succinct overview on your website what has happened for us newcomers so we can not reinvent the wheel and get up to speed to contribute.

        • 21 jane September 26, 2010 at 12:14 am

          jbjd, he was not was not qualified per the 20th amendment!!

          you said think once he was lawfully elected (which he could not have been but anyway), proving not-nbc is moot

          BUT 20th amendment is the key, he was not qualified by Jan 20,2009!

          I think andy martin is a sheister

          I support your work wholeheartedly, however, do you know where/when/how the 20th is enforced?
          Greg Abbot, TX AG, is there any news?
          Are Betty and Boyd still stuffing their fat faces and keeping mum?

          • 22 drkate September 26, 2010 at 10:00 am

            Jane…this is where the Kerchner case comes in…they are suing Obama and Congress, and one of their charges is the 20th amendment required them to vet obama…some have said this is a ministerial duty, but it is not. Check out the Kerchner filings (under Mario Apuzzo blogroll) for their discussion of the 20th amendment.

            • 23 jbjd September 26, 2010 at 11:14 pm

              drkate, without going into a long legal dissertation, MA’s application to this situation is inapposite to the issue of Constitutional eligibility of the President-Elect or Vice President-Elect. In short, Presidents and Vice Presidents were elected separately. The (or A) President Elect whose Elector votes had not been ‘certified’ was not qualified and so, the Vice President Elect whose Elector votes were ‘certified’ was qualified. Otherwise, this Amendment makes absolutely no sense. Because its history points to the time between the Elector voting and the Congressional and Presidential terms, which once were several months apart, and triggered lame duck voting for President.

              SECTION 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, (jbjd: ask yourself why this would happen) or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, (jbjd: how could the President elect not qualify except insofar as Elector votes are not accepted, given that no actor previous to this was required to vet as to Constitutional eligibility through either the Constitution or the U.S. Code?) then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

      • 24 jane September 25, 2010 at 11:09 pm

        jbjd, if Hawaii’s state laws required constitutional eligibility, and the Hawaii Democratic Committee refused to constitutionally qualify Obama, then Pelosi stepped in saying he was so eligible despite no probative documentation…does that take Hawaii SoS off the hook because they counted on Pelosi, and she with her big balls was going to stick her neck out on the line for the fraud?

        What about the other states? They never even got from Pelosi any notation that he was constitutionally eligible, she omitted that. Don’t other states require constitutional eligibility?

        I’m going to look at your site, but let me know if there’s any more information.

        • 25 jbjd September 26, 2010 at 11:17 pm

          jane, I suggest you read the SC citizen complaint of election fraud in the sidebar of my blog. In SC, candidates must register for party primaries through the party and not directly with the state. Plus there is a law like in HI requiring specific language certifying the eligibility of the candidate (in both the primary and general election).

          The SC complaint has been posted for almost 9 (nine) months now.

  9. 26 Heather September 24, 2010 at 7:56 pm


    Job well done!

  10. 27 no-nonsense-nancy September 24, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    Thank you, Jane, great work!

  11. 28 jane September 24, 2010 at 8:44 pm

    OT but “time to panic”!

    Subject: Healthcare bill; A summary in easy to understand language by a Constitutional Attorney

    A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish. This is stunning!

    The Truth About the Health Care Bills – Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

    Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

    To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

    The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

    However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

    The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

    The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

    This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide…

    If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

    So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn’t stop there though.

    The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

    The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

    I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights… Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

    For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

    Michael Connelly
    Retired attorney,
    Constitutional Law Instructor
    Carrollton , Texas


    • 29 Quantum Leap September 25, 2010 at 1:02 am

      Tea Partiers have read it too and knew all about the above items. Why else were we screaming so loud? Michael Connelly has a duty to send it viral and go on TV and talk about it. What good is reading it if he doesn’t do anything to warn the people who have no idea?

  12. 30 Tenacity September 25, 2010 at 12:48 am

    Thank you Charles! I have made that point often, but lacked the backup of Hamilton and Jay’s correspondence. Excellent! Interesting that those two Nationalists would prove this point now so important to this true federalist (anti-Federalist) and our republic. I trust the SCOTUS will choke on this morsel.

  13. 32 tiger 7 September 25, 2010 at 9:42 am

    We are approaching the little end of the funnel, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel—whatever the expression, but we are indeed at the crisis-turning point–for the country. I am so proud of the wonderful, astute work done by “average” Americans like the folks of this blog and other like patriots in defense of the nation. The TEA folks and others have demonstrated a level of concern not seen before in my days.

    With Gods help we will be successful in the recovery of our Constitutional form of government and be a better and more aware nation. The control of the Congress is a neccesary, but not sufficient, condition for our recovery, but I feel that it is a very likely thing. Much work and agonization will be required to undo the chaos that has been laid upon us, but this group of educated and motivated people can get the job done.
    This could not have happened several years ago—the terribly onerous events of the last 2-3 years have made us stronger and more aware.
    Keep up the good fight, good people!!

  14. 33 JJ September 25, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    Whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent party, all must be concerned with the notion that once again, voter fraud is definite with compromised electronic machines.
    Yes, we are focusing on the dead voters and the multiple voters, but how do we ensure our vote is not changed??

    Some say the need for organized teams to conduct exit polls at every voting station is now.
    I agree.

    • 34 Tenacity September 25, 2010 at 5:28 pm

      It is specifically the electronic counting of the votes that is unconstitutional and is known to have been compromised. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs
      Electronic voting can only be done in secret which is prohibited in the constitution.

      You are absolutely correct about the need for legitimate accountable exit polling. The cases where fraud and/or manipulation have been discovered, the exit polling data turned out to be accurate and vice versa.

  15. 35 Jan September 25, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Dr. Kate,
    Did JBJD ever post a copy of the document he was writing that we could copy and send to our DA?
    I just finished “Never less than a treason” part 1 and 2 and he mentions he is working on the document.

    • 36 jbjd September 27, 2010 at 1:03 pm

      Jan, the citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG in applicable states are posted in the sidebar of my blog. There are most states out there but no citizens have come forward to obtain complaints. (We know MO and AL are applicable but no citizens yet have asked for a complaint…)

  16. 38 jane September 25, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    Hancock: Sorry your lies are too easily disproven.

    Minor holds no 14th amendment statutory citizen can be a natural born citizen.
    You’re quoting 14thers, and none can be NBCs.

    Sorry, Obot, be gone, you’re outgunned.

  17. 41 jane September 25, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    How can we get 1 just one lousy state, to be required to vet candidates? Just one, but which one? Alabama? Texas?

    • 42 drkate September 25, 2010 at 5:55 pm

      Jane, jbjd has done extensive work on this subject, but there is work that can be done now short of ‘required to vet’ candidate…head on over to her website for the details and archives of extensive work. Also, on her website are the four interviews she did for Revolution Radio.

      There are four states where the work that jbjd can catch Pelosi right now in fraud…because of the failure to certify.

  18. 44 jane September 25, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    When I called Arizona a while back the young man at Gov. Brewer’s office seemed very interested in the eligibility issue and I offered that Apuzzo, Kerchner, Donofrio or others would be more than willing to assist, but I’ve never heard ONE word challenging Obama’s authority, which he has none of, to sue AZ in the first place.
    This is when I thought Brewer was controlled opposition because she was on the FEMA Governor’s Council working for Obama.

  19. 45 Heather September 25, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    Jane–thanks for that article from the retired Attorney–I would say that its high time we take over this govt immediately and get these thugs out, arrested and convicted!

    This is disgusting and the republicans better get on bended knee and beg us for our votes to repeal this entire so called bogus law.

    What a bunch of pigs these elected politicans are and how dare they decide my future!

  20. 46 Mary September 25, 2010 at 11:10 pm

    Outstanding post, Dr. Kate.

    • 48 Quantum Leap September 26, 2010 at 2:55 pm

      Yep, everyone everywhere knows and no one is doing anything about it.
      excerpts from the article that struck me.
      “Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify”

      “Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President” 😡

      “The US Congress knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office he holds”

      “The press knows that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” having written on several occasions about the “Kenyan born” senator from Chicago.”

      “How in the hell did we get an overtly anti-American resident of the people’s White House without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove who this person really is?”

      “Who and what is the man sitting in the people’s White House?”

      “And soldiers are court-martialed for refusing orders, unless those orders were issued by an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief.”

      “A man not even qualified to hold the office is using that office to destroy the greatest nation on earth. How much patience can the people be expected to display?

      Obama is NOT eligible for the office he currently holds and everyone in a position to know – already know.”

      DC knows what most Americans have yet to figure out…

      Obama is NOT a natural born citizen no matter where he might have been born.

      They know something else that the American people have yet to figure out…

      The US Constitution no longer stands as the governing law of this land. Obama’s many unconstitutional policies, Czars, executive orders and statements provide the proof, and the fact that nobody in DC cares whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States should send a shiver down the spine of every red blooded American citizen, no matter their partisan agendas.

      The people willing to ask the tough questions are deemed crackpots and conspiracy theorists, racists or bigots. But those tough questions should be obvious questions to all Americans and every president should have to answer those questions, no matter race, creed, color or party affiliation.

  21. 49 Quantum Leap September 26, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Letter from the editor of that tiny New England town..
    This guy is good. And yes, I agree with what’s being whispered now…—>Hillary for Head of Dept of Defense.

    If only Washington, DC and all those people we voted for to never forget about the wants of we, the people could know how to spell the word BOMBING and what it’s for and why.

    Over in Afghanistan, we have dozens of our young men and women every MONTH who will NEVER come home. All of them should get the Medal of Honor posthumously.

    Today, our enemies around the world use bombs of every kind to kill their enemies. Probably in 40 wars going on around the globe. Unfortunately, we have several wars also, but we DON’T USE BOMBS. WHY? Because our troops are told not to, by Washington, DC. We should send those in Washington to the front lines of war and see how fast we would be using bombs.

    95% of the wars going on do not have large Air Forces and none have huge bombing high altitude planes like we do. Probably Russia, England and China have large bombers. So, the smaller countries use automobiles, trucks put them underground in roads and trails. They have killed hundreds of our boys and women in Iraq and Afghanistan using huge bombers.

    So, our troops move in to sleep in large buildings that are first completely checked for bombs. Once in a while, bombs are planted later in the dark. The point being, their bombs are KILLING our troops, while our bombers are rusting away. Generals will tell you WAR IS HELL. Yes, it is, when our Democrats and Republicans are busy approving more laws that have nothing to do with our troops under fire every day, and bombs in roads, on trails, in homes, buildings, cars, trucks are KILLING our troops.

    If Washington would stop and think about what’s happening to our troops, perhaps they would WAKE UP!

    Fuel the huge planes we have that pack bombs.

    IF they sent in 50 or 60 bombers three times a day in Afghanistan, morning, noon and night, THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN WOULD BE OVER IN ONE WEEK.

    And our troops could come home to be present in Washington
    when our president paid honor to those who died in Iraq – 6,000 men and women – and in Afghanistan – 4,500 men and women – the MEDAL OF HONOR.

    It’s realized that the Medal of Honor is only for those who saved the life of others in a manner that could or did kill him in this act of courage.

    All other men and women in the service of our country who were shot or injured in any way deserve the Purple Heart.

    Perhaps some day those who were given the Medal of Honor will go up another notch. All our troops who go to war deserve a major medal after going through hell with their lives on the line so we can remain free.

    Meanwhile, our men and women overseas could start home, after seven days of morning, noon and night bombings of our enemy.

    Meanwhile, our enemy continues their bombing in every way they possibly can. Our enemy even uses people to get close to our troops, then ignites a bomb they have under their clothes. They die with bombs under their clothes but take our troops with them when they can.

    They use cars, trucks, people, dogs, children, homes, buildings and they back off and live sometimes while our troops die from hidden bombs. They plant land mines in roads and we lose five men when a truck is blown up.

    Please, please, please, God, give us a way to send in our huge bombers and have this war won in seven days.

    Asst. Publisher

  22. 56 no-nonsense-nancy September 26, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Dr. Kate, that is a very good article in the EU Times. They are right. Everyone knows. We just have go to get him out of our House very, very soon. We need to go to DC again in a very large group and put up a real protest. No matter what we all think of Phil Berg, we need to support him in his march in Oct. by showing up there.


  23. 57 tiger 7 September 26, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    Yes, all Washington knows, but until the Social Democratic rule in congress is broken it might do more harm than good to raise the issue. Pelosi has already shown she has no regard for the Constitution by her previous fraudulent actions. The present congress could vote the Constitution null and void and declare bho Emperor—as if they haven’t effectively done so.

  24. 59 no-nonsense-nancy September 26, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    I wish that Beck, Palin and others would start supporting us in regards to the eligibility issue. We desperately need them to help us. Even Judge Napolitano, with his knowledge of the constitution, should certainly know what “natural born” means. They need to call him what he is, a usurper communist.
    Glen Beck with his “successful” rally in August, at least in numbers, was a waste in my opinion. If he wanted to make it about God why didn’t he make it about the fact that God gave us the founders who gave us this great country and the constitution which was supposed to protect us from a usurpation such as we have seen. They all need to call him what he is, a fraud, fake, usurper communist.
    They all need to join us in our effort to:


  25. 60 Heather September 26, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    NNN-I agree with everything you said, and I at one time was an avid Beck watcher, until he completely changed his show in January. I decided at that point he wasn’t going to come on our side and he wasn’t worth my time. Sure he puts out the info and has brought many people out against barry, but still refuses to tell the truth!

    We will see what happens with Phil Bergs march. Hopefully he will turn this around!

  26. 62 themunz January 1, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    I would like t point out that not only do you accept the standard of a Natural Born Citizen as being born of TWO American Citizens, but so did the Senate when they confirmed that John McCain was a natural Born Citizen.
    They however Never took u the same question about Obama, nor did they apply the same standard. If they had, he would NEVER have been able to ascend to the office of the President in which he now holds illegally.

    • 63 Papoose January 1, 2011 at 1:12 pm

      That remains a problem. conspiracy and collusion, just look at the players. its a sticky web.

      On the bright side, it is a gift.

      Exhibit A 2008 – the Standard

  1. 1 Dual Citizenship and the Presidency « drkatesview Trackback on September 27, 2010 at 11:22 am
  2. 2 MUST READ…Note the author also believes that a serious investigation of Obama will result in resignation… | NwoDaily.com Trackback on September 29, 2010 at 5:00 am
  3. 3 The Usurpathon’s October Surprise « drkatesview Trackback on October 6, 2010 at 3:48 pm
  4. 4 | NwoDaily.com Trackback on October 20, 2010 at 4:00 pm
  5. 5 Calling Obama’s Bluff « drkatesview Trackback on November 11, 2010 at 12:57 am
  6. 6 Shooting the Messenger « drkatesview Trackback on November 15, 2010 at 10:40 pm
  7. 7 Obama Can’t Prove He’s American « drkatesview Trackback on December 28, 2010 at 1:39 am
  8. 8 | NwoDaily.com Trackback on December 28, 2010 at 9:28 am
  9. 9 Dual Citizenship and the Presidency, Part II « drkatesview Trackback on January 24, 2011 at 12:06 am
  10. 10 Pretend Stupidity « drkatesview Trackback on April 5, 2011 at 10:38 pm
  11. 11 Why Release an Obvious Fake? « drkatesview Trackback on April 28, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Comments are currently closed.

September 2010
« Aug   Oct »

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 Logistics Monster

  • 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: