The Navy Commander versus Col. Obot

©2010 drkate

The Court Martial proceedings , held in the Magistrate’s Court at the Army’s Ft. Meade, were accompanied by significant military and local police presence inside and outside the Courtroom.  It was patently designed to intimidate Lakin’s  family and supporters and was perfectly in line with the military and Homeland Security masters’ intent to demonize patriotic Americans, particularly on the issue of Obama’s  eligibility.  This military presence was complete with tasers, batons, hand guns, handcuffs, and emergency vehicles, as well as the usual round of rumors that ‘violence’ was expected from the public.

Yet the only violence exhibited was by an Obot  Colonel  against an Article II Constitutionalist, aka, ‘birther’,  Commander Charles Kerchner (Ret.).  This is a first hand account, supplemented by CDR Charles Kerchner’s recount of the interaction.

Courtroom Break Showdown

Col. Sullivan, of the blog CAAFlog and a Marine Reserve officer, sat in the courtroom with his citizenship manual and dishonestly argued that the 14th amendment allowed Obama to be a ‘natural born citizen’.  I am sure many of you have seen his derogatory posts ridiculing Lakin, the Article II Constitutionalists, and the entire question of Hussein’s ineligibility.  It was quite something to sit next to him as he and his partner Phil Cave guffawed at the entire proceedings, especially when it came to attacking Lakin.

As he pointlessly argued his case for a 14th amendment citizen being a natural born citizen, Commander (Ret.) Charles Kerchner leaned over and suggested he was being intellectually dishonest.  Suddenly, Sullivan lost his cool, climbed over me and others sitting next to him, yelling at Kerchner,  “SIR.  SIR.”  His aggressive behavior would have trampled anyone in his way.

Sullivan confronted Kerchner toe to toe, and face to face, pointing and yelling about the accusation of his ‘honesty’ and ‘intellect’ being questioned.  Fingers flying, red faces, and the Commander did not back down.  Instead, in a delicious exchange where Kerchner cited fact after fact–of course based on his extensive research–to the red faced obot Sullivan…

Several military members in the court room moved over to the confrontation, eying the aggressive Sullivan.

…and when the question was asked by Kerchner in a forceful Naval Commanders voice two times in a row, “Do you or do you not believe he [Obama] is a natural born citizen?”, literally, Sullivan’s knees collapsed, his shoulders slumped, and he turned, rushed away without answering the question and ran back to his seat.  He was visibly shaking, his pen uncontrollable, and was muttering something about ‘being so embarrassed’…

To which I and my compatriot, sitting next to him, thoroughly agreed that ‘this kind of intellectual dishonesty is endangering the Nation’, tsk tsk.  😛

Perhaps he learned his lesson to NEVER go up against a Navy Commander with the experience of Charles Kerchner!!!

Col Sullivan proved only one thing: he can’t handle the truth.

141 Responses to “The Navy Commander versus Col. Obot”

  1. 1 CPT Pamela Barnett December 19, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    I was there. This is exactly how it happened. However, I did not hear what the LTC muttered to himself when he left the confrontation he caused.

    Really…. there were an awful amount of security people there for the amount of people in the courtroom.

    • 2 justafly December 20, 2010 at 6:00 am

      Hi Captain!

      I can ONLY guess that the actions of COL Sullivan was designed to rattle Kerchner and have him arrested by the many MP’s in the courtroom.

  2. 3 jrinNC December 19, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Dr Kate – thank you so very much for enlightening us to the events that took place during COL Lakin’s trial. The truth will always come to light, regardless of how much darkness and evil try to surround it. I consider you, Kate, a great patriot. (jrinNC @HeyokaPatriots)

  3. 4 cort wrotnowski December 19, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    I would like to know, in detail, what supporting arguments Obot uses to hold up his claim that the 14th Amendment allows him to be a NBC.

    Also, I need to review the whys and wherefores around the notion of automatic citizenship when Kenya became a nation and bo reached his 18th birthday.

    One other item. I wish I had the reference, but I came across a legislative initiative presented to a Senate panel four or more years ago, when someone sought to redefine the term “natural born citizen” so as not to be limited to having both parents as Citizens. That initiative was shot down. To me, that illustrates forcefully, how, to this day, there is still a very clear implicit definition of “natural born citizen” which cannot be simply changed by congressional fiat.

    • 5 tfb December 19, 2010 at 5:59 pm

      “I would like to know, in detail, what supporting arguments Obot uses to hold up his claim that the 14th Amendment allows him to be a NBC.”
      The Obots like to say that “Citizens” in Article I and II refers only to those naturalized by oath. (This is impossible however since the naturalization oath law wasn’t implemented until 1790.) Then they like to artificially lump naturalized-at-birth or “born citizens” in with “natural born Citizens”, but they are distinct, which is why natural born Citizens are omitted from USCode 1401. In fact, “Citizen” means those who are naturalized by oath and naturalized at birth, as described by the 14th amendment and resultant US Code 1401. So anyone who is a USC1401 is NOT eligible to be president.
      “Also, I need to review the whys and wherefores around the notion of automatic citizenship when Kenya became a nation and bo reached his 18th birthday.”
      Because BHO’s father and grandfather were British Citizens by Birth, he was also a British Citizen…by birth if born in a British Colony, or by descent if born elsewhere, but in all cases he was born a British citizen (British Nationality Act of 1948). Then by his 21st birthday he could choose whether he wanted Kenyan Citizenship or if not, he would remain a British Citizen (British Nationality Act of 1981). He never lost his British citizenship, unless he was adopted Indonesian prior to age 5, then he was just an Indonesian, but he could have reclaimed his Kenyan citizenship and in face he went back to Kenya in time to do so—I suspect that is why he did this.

      Because his COLB seal is a clear forgery, he is an illegal alien, likely a Kenyan.

      • 6 thinkwell December 19, 2010 at 7:18 pm

        The Framers of the Constitution did not fill it with meaningless word fluff. If they had intended that, along with the age and residency requirements, merely being born a Citizen should be sufficient to qualify one for the Presidency, then the word “natural” would have be totally superfluous and the qualifying phrase used in the Constitution would have simply been “born Citizen.” Therefore, obviously something more than just being born a Citizen is required.

        Dwight Sullivan acted like an intellectually dishonest thug because he realizes that Obama is not and can never be a “natural born Citizen” (regardless of whether he is even indeed a born Citizen) and lashing out is all he has left. His childish behavior is as pathetic as are his arguments impotent.

        The Founders repeatedly told us in their written records that they wanted to ensure against foreign influence within the Presidency and that is why the extra qualifier “natural” was added to the eligibility language to further limit the pool of Citizens who might become President. Being born a Citizen was simply not enough – one had to be a true “natural born Citizen,” i.e., born completely free of foreign allegiance by virtue of being born to parents who themselves were U.S. Citizens.

      • 7 Papoose December 20, 2010 at 11:27 am

        Exactly. And the need to examine the actual birth certificate is to uncover the facts schedule, thereon, at the time. 8/4/1961

        According the various COLBs, folded and unfolded, the “Father’s” race is listed as African. Why then is his Mother’s race not declared as North American since Hawaii apparently used a Continent as senior’s “race”. Are all people born in Africa of the African race? Are all brown people born in other places on different continents depicted as being of the “African” race?

        When did this become the norm? This one little anomaly is very telling about those photo-shopped internet numerous COLBs all bearing the same date of issuance.

        The problem with the missing Birth Certificate is not just the place of birth but many, many other facts, in doubt, as well.

        Like, what’s your name? And why the II designation since your supposed father is “senior?”

        That race designation is key. What was the race designation in 1961 and why doesn’t it read as it should have been originally stated? Did the Hawaii Department of Health promulgate a change in race designation and amend how it would read on COLBs?

        What’s the big secret anyway? The original birth certificate is of utmost importance in that it belongs to an historical figure such as barky and his claim to being the “first”.

        I find it amazing that these high-falluting, know-it-all expert attorneys would accept evidence that was put forth on the internet and further shove it down anyone’s throat. They sure wouldn’t accept such evidence in “a court of law” if they were prosecuting a case and it would never pass the smell test without being authenticated. PERIOD.

        Talk about looney, bonehead birthers. ? okay. not.

        ~~~ side bar

        yo Maureen Dowd! your bogus potus admitted to making a “boneheaded” mistake when he made that illegal purchase of his Chicago mansion with the Rezkos’, remember? He didn’t have enough money for the down payment (qualify for the mortgage)and he wanted that side-lot as well, blah, blah, blah. (Funny that, Tony has yet to be sentenced from his June 2008 conviction, hmmmm.)

        Oh, what a web we weave when we first practice to deceiv

        • 8 Papoose December 20, 2010 at 11:34 am

          BONEHEADED is a racist slur insofar as I’m concerned.

          I find it offensive. What does it mean actually?

          It conjures up National Geographic documentary photos to me and I think we should define it so that we can be sure it is not meant to be derogatory toward primitive and tribal peoples.

          I really loathe that word. Exactly what should it connotate when it is used?

    • 9 thedametruth December 27, 2010 at 4:42 pm

      absolutely! in a world that observed legal precedent, this would have been the deal maker. as it is, we now operate in the sub rosa world of the Queen of Hearts, where up is down, down is up, and legality, citizenship and rights are unpleasant obstacles which are not only never discussed, but actively buried and ignored.

      It is difficult to function in a world lacking integrity, intelligence and information.

  4. 10 tfb December 19, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    The nation is waking up to the fact that these army traitors are supporting their very own cohorts getting killed at nauseatingly high rates due to the usurper’s malfeasance and rules of engagement and backstabbing.
    They even betray their very own kind. Why? Because they think they’ll be getting some piece of the pie for supporting this treason. They will instead be brought down, down, down.

  5. 11 True Patriot December 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    @ TFB One only has to look at history to know what will happen to these treasonous vermin.

    Once Hitler has used these types he had them all killed. All of these vermin will be killed and butchered by Obama & his thugs.

    This is what they are all about. A bunch of thugs. Murdering thugs.

    Nothing but pervasive evil and oppression.

    • 12 thedametruth December 27, 2010 at 4:43 pm

      True, in the past I would not have doubted you; these days, it is difficult to believe in anything good or right happening with this murderous group of morons at the helm. However, I pray that you are correct. It would be the greatest gift to the Americans, America and indeed, the world.

  6. 13 Sharon Rondeau December 19, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Thank you, Dr. Kate, for a very illustrative first-hand account of the Lt. Col.’s behavior. Those supporting Obama have no leg on which to stand, which the Col. proved beyond a doubt last week. Shame on him for not standing up for one of his own and lying to cover the fraud and deceit of the Empty Suit usurping the White House.

    The entire military should be ashamed of itself, and I no longer support anything they do. IF they choose to serve under a usurper, they will be brought to account for it in good time. The U.S. military has turned against the citizens, and the commanders carrying on this outrage need to be jailed and tried for treason.

    • 14 thedametruth December 27, 2010 at 4:47 pm

      Sharon, very well said. There are so many of us who agree that it is difficult to understand how things have devolved to this point. The Lakin case should have been a clear, open and shut case, as was LTC Kerchener and Apuzzo’s.

      The mere fact that LTC Lakin was REFUSED THE BASIC RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE was, IMO, one of the most heinous perpetrations by any of these criminals. Ms. Lind is either missing a few brain cells, has never studied law, or was beaten into submission to have made such an insane decision. It would be laughable were it not so tragic and personally devastation for LTC Lakin, and, indeed, for our nation as a whole.

  7. 15 Troy December 19, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    The next time an Obot brings up the 14th Amend as an arguement for the usurper, just throw this at them:

    The term “natural born Citizen”, used in our constitution, is derived from Natural Law = Laws of God / NATURE (hence the word “NATURal” being used within the phrase “natural born Citizen”)

    If ANY person’s citizenship status relies upon anything, i.e. man’s pen, other than the simple irrefutable laws of nature / God, then that person can never be a natural born Citizen.

    Summarized: If one’s citizenship is acquired by and dependent upon any of man’s written laws, then one is not a “natural born Citizen”…Period!

    • 16 drkate December 19, 2010 at 6:38 pm

      Exactly. thank you! This is the intellectual dishonesty of the left

    • 17 thedametruth December 27, 2010 at 4:48 pm

      Totally true! I have great difficulty understanding why so few people are able to comprehend this issue. It’s as simple as it gets. This alone has caused me to lose respect for and faith in most Americans.

    • 18 justafly December 27, 2010 at 6:08 pm

      Natural law, natural rights, natural food, natural gas, natural history, natural selection, natural death, natural childbirth, …………..

      So why the confusion of natural born citizen?

  8. 19 Troy December 19, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    An additional note:

    A person’s natural born Citizenship can NEVER be taken away by any laws of man, ever!…It is a God / Nature given inalienable class of citizenship.

    A 14th Amendment citizen’s (cough, cough …uh, me thinks that includes Obama) citizenship CAN be taken away….Mortal man bestowed that citizenship.

    Man giveth through his laws and man may taketh away through the repeal of his laws…Man’s political whims change with the times.

    • 20 tfb December 19, 2010 at 7:19 pm

      The 14th woulda included BHO but since his COLB seal is forged he’s just a lousy illegal alien Kenyan, just like his Auntie Zeituni.

  9. 21 jtx December 19, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    Certainly Charles Kerchner knows whereof he speakss WRT the eligibility issue whereas (if you listened to what amounted to a 2-hour Flying-Monkey-chortle-and-wrist-kissing-episode on their radio program … with even Dr. Conspiraccy chiming in) you would soon realize that Dwight Sullivaan holds himself out to be “one helluva man and ready as an ex-Marine to kick the stuffing out of anyone or anything” and “how dare” a stinking little ex-Navy guy take on a hero-marine such as he??.Hmmm!

    IOW the fool is so full of himself that he thinks the facts do not matter and it is clear that Charles Kerchner helped to show the guy up for the ass he truly is who knows very little or nothing about the true eligibility issue and does not even recognize that the UCMJ decision is complete fraud since to make such a ruling requires that Obama be eligible to hold the office he now ocupies … and the military court does not have the jurisdiction to decide that – yet they implicitly did since if the man is not eligible then any of his orders are illegal and of no effect.

    Making the pretence that he IS eligible or ignoring the fact
    does not get the job done. Sullivan does not seem to understand that the military courts were created by Congress under the authority of the U. S. Constitution and therefore they (the UCMJ folk) do not have the jurisdiction to judge whether the man is eligible or not – and yet that is exactly what they have done by convicting LTC Lakin. They have said that Obama has issued valid orders with no basis for such a decision but with an extraordinary amount of evidentiary material saying exasctly the opposite. It is not their province to do so in any way shape, or form. Their more judicious ruling would have been to have passed the entire eligibility issue to the U. S. Supreme Court while holding the Lakin hearing in abeyance – which they could have done – for an eligibility ruling which would entail a definition of the term “natural born Citizen”. After THAT ruling THEN the UCMJ could proceed – or not – with a sound legal basis for all concerned and for the entire country. As it is, they blew it badly and fools like Sullivan merely make them look worse (if possible).

    The Flying Monkeys such as Dwight Sullivan or Denise Lind et al, of course, could not possibly have allowed that due to their own political objectives and/or Constitutional Cowardice. Instead they have done what Chief Justice John Marshall defined as “Treason to the Constitution”.

    No wonder Sullivan (finally) realized he was being a jerk and was embarrassing not only hinmself but his country.

    Kudos to Commander K. for staanding up for is country and its Constitution!!!

    • 23 drkate December 19, 2010 at 7:41 pm

      OMG! I had not read that post (my bad) before, and I can’t believe I sat next to him! 😯

      • 24 Troy December 19, 2010 at 8:09 pm

        I know that scrubbing with Ajax may be hard on the skin, but maybe you should consider it. 😆

        • 25 drkate December 19, 2010 at 8:12 pm

          😯 will do, pronto!

        • 26 RacerJim December 20, 2010 at 10:14 am

          I know that using Ajax and tile scrubbing brushes on the skin of two gay guys in my Army Basic Training unit who wouldn’t keep their hands to themselves worked well enough to get them discharged before the end of Basic Training. 🙂

  10. 27 Troy December 19, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    LTC Lakin is now officially a civilian and upon time served will no longer be under the thumb of the military judicial system…I hope a fire builds in his belly over the course of the next six months, for when he is released he will be the ULTIMATE quo warranto plaintiff.

    Me?…Why, I’d be lookin’ for a little retribution! 👿

    You know what they say about paybacks!

    • 28 Ginger December 20, 2010 at 9:55 am


      I was not going to post here any more …just read but I am worried! Lt. Col Lakin can NOT show NO “fire in the belly.” We must be quiet until after he serves the corrupted time they did to him. Not until he is out! I fear for his life!

  11. 29 Troy December 19, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    So, as it would turn out, Sullivan is a pickle puffer and a jihadist…Great, just great!!! 😮

  12. 30 slcraig December 19, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    I have set aside all referrences to authorities not expressed in the Founding Documents and now have found a vindication of that approach that may have been a seed that flourished from a prior reading;

    “[I]t is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognized as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State [p407] which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

    It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms…”

    [u]Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)[/u]

    • 31 drkate December 19, 2010 at 8:08 pm

      First, “citizen of the United States” is not the same as ‘natural born citizen’.

      Second, you cannot view this independently of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

      • 32 slcraig December 19, 2010 at 8:55 pm

        I’m not sure what you are saying.

        I view the usage and construction of ‘natural born Citizen’ as found in the Constitution as an ‘idiom’ imbued with meaning beyond the the definition of the juxtaposition of the individual words.

        Beyond the inclusion of the ‘doctrine of consent’ coupled with the ‘suggestion’ of John Jay’s expressions of National Security concerns and being given a ‘starting point’ of the ‘adoption’ of the Constitution with the explicit tempering by the Grandfather Clause it begins to come clear that it is indeed a stand-alone Constitutional idiom that can not be confused by any prior usages of the juxtaposition of the words, albeit history and writers of history well informed of its usefulness.

        I have found that in studying the Constitutions of the various States as written during the years of conflict after the Declaration of Independence and in the union of the Articles of Confederation it is plain that NO Jus Soli grant of Citizenship made it way to Statutes but those that were ‘native born’ were always welcomed to apply, qualify and be granted citizenship, (‘freeman/elector’), status, all other requirements being met. Jus Soli citizenship was reserved as the ‘birth-right’ possessed by the citizen parents and passed to their children, all wives being of the citizenship of her husband.

        The ‘0bots’ that cling to ‘un-parented jus soli births’ are obviously products of a Bill Ayres education.

  13. 34 slcraig December 19, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    But, does anyone know if or here Judge Lind make a State=ment that the ‘0’ was ‘legally elected’………I read that somewhere and thought it was in the Sept. order, but it’s not….

    ….did anyone hear a statment like that from the ‘bench’.

    • 35 jtx December 20, 2010 at 10:45 am


      The consideration that Obanma is legally holding office and issuing orders under his authority to the mlitary is actually implicit in the UCMJ decision and imprisonment of LTC Lakin.

      If it were not then Lakin could hardly be convicted and incarcerated for disobeying an illegal order. That Lind did not explicitly use the term “legally elected” does not matter in the least. The court’s decision and sentencing can have no other interpretation unless one believes that the orders were issued solely by the military (which the UCMJ likes to pretend) without any purview of the man who occupies the office he has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold.

      Do you suppose that the Pentagon dreams up all that stuff itself and just goes ahead with it with no knowedge or approval from “higher up”??? If so, God help us!

      The military court could only justifiably convict Lakin if they found the orders to be legal – guessing that they are does not count in view of the truly vast river of evidence to the contrary re the eligibility issue. Pretending the orders are legal is the military equivalent of the SCOTUS evasion technique of pretending no one has “standing” or that the eligibility matter is a “political issue” … which are also not correct and are merely judicial fictions, too, by a similar set of cowards who have given an Oath to protect and defend our Constituton but refuse to do so. That is what Chief Justice John Marshall called “Treason to the Constituton”.

      • 36 justafly December 20, 2010 at 11:02 am

        The eligibility issue was avoided during the kangaroo-court martial. I do not believe ANY inference can be made.

        The orders would be improperly deemed legal since no evidence was permitted to be entered to refute Barry’s eligibility.

        The whole process is hard to justify;


  14. 37 tfb December 19, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    Updated Scene from “An Officer And A Gentleman”:

    Drill Sergeant to Recruit: “Only two things come out of Oklahoma…Steers and queers! Which one are you boy?”

    Recruit to Drill Sergeant: “I’m a queer Drill Sergeant!”

  15. 38 Quantum Leap December 19, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    @ TFB -Careful. This is an all inclusive site and if you are not just playing around you might offend others.
    Gay people have served honorably in the military since America was born. It’s a non-issue.

    • 39 tfb December 19, 2010 at 10:19 pm

      Nobody is constrained to my sensitivities! Why don’t I impose myself on everyone too? The military is not the place for social engineering experiments which will cost million$ and probably lives. This is not like integration, there will need to be expanded facilities, laws, and there will be lots of lawsuits and hostilities and in the end it will all hobble the purpose of the military and thus national security. Four showers? Four living quarters? New “sensitivity training seminars”? More nerves? More tension? Can’t stay this, can’t say that, can’t do this, can’t do that? They can’t even say jihadi when talking about Fort Hood. I’m sure that gays have served admirably but due to the nature of close quarters and combat situations, open display of homosexual orientation is going to be counter-productive towards the end of maintaining a prime fighting force.

      • 40 drkate December 19, 2010 at 10:28 pm

        This is a free speech zone on this site, and as you know I am not one to moderate or modify any comments…I am trying to create a safe place here to discuss.

        That said, perhaps the best way is to keep as close to the post topic as possible…


    • 41 drkate December 19, 2010 at 10:26 pm

      Being an all inclusive site means just that too, including people who have strong feelings the other way.

      If it is a non issue, and also off topic, lets all try not to get engaged in or react to statements.

      • 42 Troy December 19, 2010 at 10:37 pm

        Thanks, Doc!…I was kinda wonderin’ why I have never been booted off of here. 😉

      • 43 jtx December 20, 2010 at 10:52 am


        WRT the eligibility issue and the recent Ft. Meade hearings, were you aware that Dwight Sullivan in his post-hearing radio broadcast with his other like-minded pals was attempting to denigrate you for “lookng like you were praying” (his words) just before the sentencing??

        I would love to have a recording of the tete-a-tete between Sullivan and Kerchner. Sullivan has almost no understand of the eligibility matter and Kerchner certainly does – in depth and in spades!!

        • 44 drkate December 20, 2010 at 11:58 am

          I was praying, and for anyone to make fun of that just shows how Godless, disrespectful, and arrogant these asses are. they can spend their whole lives laughing but God has a special place to mete out his vengance on those who would disobey. Our military is full of people like this Sullivan, whose real blog should be called CAFO (confined animal feeding operation) because all he puts forth is crap.

  16. 46 bdwilcox December 20, 2010 at 12:31 am

    We really need the full court transcripts. If what I’ve read in the various media is accurate, I believe they may have given away a hint of undue command influence. But without actual transcripts it’s impossible to verify. I’ve never tried to ascertain transcripts of a court martial. Does anyone know where to start?

  17. 47 inge December 20, 2010 at 3:58 am

    This whole affair regarding the ‘ineligibility’ of Obama; the actions of the military judge; the complete chain of command-leaves me speechless!
    I can only shake my head; and be disgusted about the treatment of Larkin!
    Is there not one courageous person, judge, senator, or military person standing up for what’s right anymore?
    Have we sunk so low, that everything appears to be rigged against all americans, and non-americans (like me)to simply bring the USA down? And if so, why??

  18. 48 ObamaRelease YourRecords December 20, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Commander Charles Kerchner and William Baer on the Rule of Law radio show. – 12/19/10 –

  19. 49 justafly December 20, 2010 at 5:16 am

    This is a 100% accurate account as I remember it.

    I spoke to COL Sullivan (and Phil Cave) after a few minutes, to allow him time to calm down. He was shaken and embarrassed about his own actions, unbecoming of a gentleman and an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve. Both men continued to try to justify their false understanding of what was required to be a natural born citizen.

    It seemed obvious to me, and others, that COL Sullivan at least had doubts himself, or at least did not wish to commit himself to an honest answer.

    I was just a fly on the wall.

  20. 50 justafly December 20, 2010 at 5:49 am

    P.S. My post on CAAFlog

    [quote]JustaFly says:
    December 20, 2010 at 6:47 am (Quote)

    I enjoyed our conversation Colonel tho’ we did not agree on the central issue. I never did get to finish my question to you on the definition of the words “born”(beyond the red herring answer of vaginal birth vs. C-Section from Mr.Cave) and “natural”.

    I am certain you would have to agree that anything that is “natural” is not ‘by nature’ mad-made/man-caused*. A legislative act, of course is not “natural” (quite unnatural mostly, I believe we could agree), therefore your reliance on any act of Congress as bestowing naturalality [sic] on anyone must,(if one is intellectually honest), eliminate the 14th Amendment as evidence of one’s level of citizenship status.

    “Why does USC Article 2 and not Article 1 contain an exception clause if the definition of both uses are identical?”

    * e.g. natural rights, natural ingredients, natural childbirth, natural boundaries

    “I was there as just a fly on the wall.”

      • 52 justafly December 20, 2010 at 8:57 am



        NATURAL, a. [to be born or produced]

        1. Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. Thus we speak of the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural color; natural beauty. In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial [b]or acquired[/b].

        • 53 drkate December 20, 2010 at 9:00 am

          Justafly–I certainly enjoyed meeting you and our excellent discussions. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your Service to our Nation, and thank you for letting me know the ins and outs of protocol, i.e., standing for the Medal of Honor winner–not the man, the medal.

          And thank you for posting here, I look forward to seeing you more on these pages

          xo drkate

    • 54 itooktheredpill December 20, 2010 at 8:48 am

      Soetoro/Obama was born a British subject, and not just by British Law, but by Natural Law as well.

      I have seen some discount the fact that the British Nationality Act of 1948 declares a child born to a British subject, as Soetoro/Obama claims that he was, to be a British subject at birth. Those “discounters” claim that that foreign laws have no bearing on U.S. Citizenship.

      But the central issue to the Article II Section 1 requirement of “natural born citizen” (in order to qualify to hold the office of President or Vice-President) is not a question of foreign law. It is a quesiton of Natural Law, or the Law of Nature.

      Look at the opening lines of our nation’s founding document: the Declaration of Independence:

      In Congress, July 4, 1776

      The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation

      The founders were referring to Natural Law and Biblical law (the laws of Nature’s God).

      What was the definitive treatise on Natural Law at the time of our Founders’ writing of the Declaration of Independence and later our Constitution?

      It was


      This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

      And, as explained by Vattel, natural born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

      See also:
      George Washington, John Jay, and Vattel’s Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.

      • 55 Troy December 20, 2010 at 9:44 am

        Clear, percise and to the point…Well done!

      • 57 thinkwell December 20, 2010 at 9:47 am

        Hello Red,

        I think it is important to note that Vattel was neither the creator nor even the primary definer of what constitutes the Law of Nations. He was merely an especially articulate writer who well described that preexisting body of law. It is probably the logic, clarity and accessibility oh his presentation that captured the attention of the Founders. The obots try to discredit Vattel as an obscure Swiss philosopher who espoused foreign law largely tangential to U.S. law. They can attempt to shoot the messenger all they want, but the message still remains and stands fully on its own, as its authority, as you so rightly have pointed out, derives directly from the Founding documents, rather than Vattel the man.

        • 58 itooktheredpill December 20, 2010 at 10:22 am

          I agree. Instead of saying “Vattel’s Definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen'”, I should have said “Vattel’s Explanation of the Natural Law Definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen'”.

  21. 60 karen December 20, 2010 at 9:30 am

    I am getting so depressed and I just do’nt now what to do. I thougt that Col Lakin was sure to get a fair trial and this would be are chance to show Obama is not eligible.

    I went too the trial so happy but witihn a few minutes the world crashed. First I was expecting so many people to support their but their were maybe 10 people.

    I thougt that the miliatray was on are side but they are’nt. Every one was an obot from the Judge to the mps to the security people to the observers. The guy from WND was nice but all those other media were mean and insulting. I just do’nt evne know what to do next. I have spent so much time on this issue only to have every one I now call me stupid or crazy. Is their hope? I am so depressed. When Col Lakin pleaeded guilty I just about ran out of the room crying.

    Dr Kate do you now if their is any way to keep the obots from posting are pictures everywhere? I now you and Orly do’nt mind, but people like me and NNN and Patty and Col Barnett are private citizens and if my kids sees any of the pictures of me on the web posted by obots, they will never let me see my grandchildren again. Can we sue them for posting are pictures and making fun of the way we look?

    What do we do now? Please tell me their is light at the end of this long long tunnell.



    • 61 itooktheredpill December 20, 2010 at 10:30 am

      “Karen” is a moby:

      An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.

    • 64 drkate December 20, 2010 at 11:53 am

      If you thought Lakin would get a fair trial, then you haven’t been following this issue at all. Numbers in the court room are no indication of numbers outside. The only people I saw were lakin supporters, obots and the lame stream media. Who were you?

    • 66 Renee December 20, 2010 at 5:37 pm

      Oh my God ! LOL ! You must be kidding me ?..Did someone pay Karen 50 cents for this comment ? Too funny.

  22. 67 karen December 20, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Also I think the obots are brianwashing regular citizens too. My grocery checkout guy yesterday was obviously foriegn and I asked where he was from. Turns out he is from Switzerland so I asked him if he knew alot about Vattel. He claimed he never ever herd of him and did’nt study him in school. I think Obama got to him. I got even thou. I went to the manager and told them he was a bad cashier so maybe he will loose his job!!! ha ha ha!!

  23. 70 ohioborn1 December 20, 2010 at 10:53 am

    The reason that Obama’s election was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress and the reason that he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States is that the citizenship of Obama’s parent (or even two parents) has no relationship to his Natural Born Citizen status.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’st attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    • 71 justafly December 20, 2010 at 11:05 am

      May I ask then what you believe is a “citizen” as used in USC Article 1 Section II

      • 72 RacerJim December 20, 2010 at 11:29 am

        I believe it doesn’t matter what is a “citizen” as used in USC Article 1 Section II, other than to point out that it’s not a “natural born Citizen” as used in the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1.

    • 73 Troy December 20, 2010 at 11:10 am

      The framers of our constitution intentionally stayed from English common-law….It seems they were a bit fed up with the English/British at the time.

    • 74 drkate December 20, 2010 at 11:48 am

      ohio, this is such trash and you know it. Intellectually dishonest to say the least. Your comment stays here because it illustrates how truly stupid and dishonest you obots are. But you will not be able to post here again. Good luck with your head up your a$$ hope it smells good to you.

    • 75 RacerJim December 20, 2010 at 1:03 pm

      The reason Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro was on the ballot in all 50 States, confirmed POTUS-elect by the Electoral College and the U.S. Congress, and sworn in as POTUS by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is that no one, NO ONE, with the fiduciary duty to verify his citizenship status (no matter what it is/isn’t) did so.

      The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party of Hawaii did not certify Obama as eligible to serve as POTUS “according to the U.S. Constitution” (no matter how anyone wants to define the U.S. Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” criteria) as it had Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000.

      Futhermore, the only “evidence” in the public domain that Obama is a U.S. citizen of any type is his Hawaii “Certification of Live Birth” (“COLB”)…of which there have been three visually desparate versions posted online one after the other, each one having been proferred as prima-facie (authentic and sufficent) evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Notwithstanding the fact that they are visually so desparate that at least two of them cannot be authentic (which doesn’t necessarily mean the third one is authentic), the Department of Hawaii Home Lands does not consider a Hawaii COLB as prima-facie evidence of birth in Hawaii.

      “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” — Vattel’s Law of Nations, the only legal work referenced by the U.S. Constitution.

      Notwithstanding the fact that what Edwin Meese and/or Orrin Hatch opined “natural born citizen” to mean has no legal standing, in its also lacking legal standing proclamation a 2008 Senate committee opined that John McCain was a “natural born citizen” because he was both to “U.S. citizen parents”…and Obama was part of that committee and a signator of its proclamation.

      • 76 Rosemary Woodhouse December 20, 2010 at 4:51 pm

        There was one reason, and one reason only why his eligibility wasn’t challenged priot to the election. There was only one reason he was selected. And they continue to play that particular trump card at every opportunity although it’s lost its luster.

        Unless a few brave new congressmen/women develop some spine, he is not going anywhere. The nation has been turned into politically correct(ed) cowards. Don’t shoot the messenger. You know this to be true. Our only hope is the 112th Congress. May we wish them Godspeed.

  24. 77 karen December 20, 2010 at 11:26 am

    December 20, 2010 at 10:30 am
    “Karen” is a moby:

    An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.

    I think it is very mean to call me fat like that. I may need to lose some weight but I am not a mody dick whale. Are you perfect?

    • 78 Papoose December 20, 2010 at 12:13 pm

      yeah, RP, your a meanie. bwhahahahaha

      How does one go about losing weight in their head? Karen is slender otherwise.

  25. 79 Papoose December 20, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Another Observation

    During the Sentencing phase of the proceedings the last defense witness from the North Pole was badgered by “The Government” inquistor (prosecutor).

    As his finale, he demanded twice that the former military man answer his question: to the effect

    Do you believe the President of the United States is eligible?

    It was an attack designed to humiliate, threaten and intimidate.
    It was none of his business or “The Governments'” business what that witnessed believed. ESPECIALLY, in light of the fact that it was not permitted to gain discovery or provide a defense.

    He demanded an answer in a very authoritative manner.


    What is so wrong with Americans living in these times wanting only a full blooded American, born in America to be our Commander In Chief?

    Why is that so crazy?

    Is America a Nation or a Doormat?

    ~~~~Gives new meaning to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

    Nice that the Senate can debate and enact laws for the Military insofar as their sexual persuasion, but Bona Fides of the President with respect to a Court Martial and all military personnel commanded to follow presumed lawful orders has no forum anywhere.

  26. 81 no-nonsense-nancy December 20, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    I have to say that as that confrontation was going on I was really afraid Sullivan was going to hit the Commander. I was ready to jump to his defence if he did so. Not that I could have done anything, though. Good for CMD Kerchner for standing up to the jerk.

    • 82 Paula December 20, 2010 at 1:34 pm

      Liars cannot handle the truth. They get enraged when their lies are pointed out and they are made to eat crow. It’s all a pride thing. Pride is man’s downfall before a holy and righteous God/Judge on Judgement Day.

  27. 83 justafly December 20, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    …and has anyone else considered that IF the COLB posted on the internet WAS a valid, legal, authentic document, why was it not used in ANY of the lawsuits or prosecutions by the lawyers for Barry, as proof [sic] of his Hawaiian birth?

  28. 84 FiddlerBob December 20, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Clearly Barack Hussein Obama II is not eligible for the office of President of the United States of America.

    The evidence is voluminous and irrefutable. It is available to all who wish to know and to all who wish to hide from the truth.

    It has also been confirmed sufficiently enough by Mr. Obama, himself, to justify his immediate removal from office and the nullification of all of his actions.

    In fact, Mr. Obama has stipulated that he was born under British jurisdiction via his father (whose identity he has recognized for the entirety of his life and in two books as an adult). Mr. Obama has also legally accepted Vattel’s definition of “Natural Born Citizen”. He used Vattel’s definition when he sponsored the senate resolution confirming McCain’s natural born citizen status.

    The clarity of this issue draws a line in the sand. On one side of the line are those faithful to our Constitution and our Republic. On the other are the enemies of the People.

    Any person, especially one elected or commissioned, who ignores Mr. Obama’s treason or otherwise abets his illegal activity is also guilty of treason and is an enemy of the People.

    • 85 drkate December 20, 2010 at 2:14 pm

      A line in the sand, and a bright one, too. Agreed. Thank you LTC Lakin for pushing this one, so the line is much clearer.

      • 86 Singer December 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm

        Perhaps it’s time to revisit this as well: I believe this to have been commissioned by a law firm supportive of Obama well before his (official) decision to seek the Presidency.

        It doesn’t argue the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”. In fact, it accepts it. This is an attempt to amend the NBC requirement in order to be more inclusive of all qualified citizens, ones who might otherwise be excluded.

        • 87 Singer December 20, 2010 at 4:26 pm

          Too much information regarding this to post. Search “Herlihy Natural Born Citizen” for more information and back story.

          For those of you who still think Obama wasn’t groomed for this …

  29. 88 usapatriots-shout December 20, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Off the subject but vitally important–That heinous S510 food Bill is being passed again The following is a letter from Citizen’s In Action

    We reported earlier that S. 510, the Food “Safety” bill was passed by unanimous vote in the Senate on Sunday night.

    However, we still have a chance to defeat this bill–but we must push back HARD!

    S.510 will be back in the House on 12.21 as HR.2751!
    The Sorry Story here:

    The above link provides a revised “Action Item” concerning this issue!

    In addition to taking the action posted at the above link, PLEASE CALL OR EMAIL your Congressional Representative.

    This link provides DC phone numbers; FAX numbers; and email addresses. Just enter your state and zip code in the form provided and you will be provided with contact information for all three of your state representatives.
    Click below:
    Contacting The Congress

    We only have a short time to push back against this legislation!
    PLEASE take action right away!

    Take action now!

    Then forward this email to your contacts.


    Elizabeth, Barbara, Ron, Kirk, Bruce, and Rosemary

    Citizens In Action

    • 89 Dora December 20, 2010 at 3:01 pm

      Thank you. I am going to pass that site around.

      Maybe we still have a chance to defeat this monster bill. It’s certainly worth trying.

  30. 90 SallyAl December 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    I have seen from several sources that during LTC Lakin’s sentencing, the prosecutor told him that it is not his (Lakin’s) job to safeguard our Constitution.
    If this is true, since the officers oath is ONLY to the Constitution, couldn’t this be used during an appeal or something? I have been rolling this around in my head since I read about it and checked several sources to see if he said it and it appears that he did. Could he have been “signaling” that an appeal should be made?

  31. 91 no-nonsense-nancy December 20, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    Singer, one of the reasons in that article for changing the constitution is that in the early days of our country people didn’t tend to move around and change countries. Hello! We are a country made up of immigrants moving from other countries, right from the very beginning!

  32. 92 eddie h. December 20, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    obama will only leave the white house when he is arrested handcuffed and carried or drug out. if that does not happen he will remain there until he chooses to leave. even if he should get declared ineligible i doubt he will leave voluntarily.

  33. 93 herbie December 20, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    God bless you all.

    Obama used his BS line that he was not running for President but Senator, twice!

    That very same debate.

    I saw it, and I remember the early Obots that tried to explain away why Keyes refered to why our Constitution wanted an American only to stand against threats from foreign enemies.

    I sure as hell remember the defense from the call in C-span double header of Keyes and Obama reply I saw.

    I don’t care what anyone says, it happened because I saw it.

  34. 95 no-nonsense-nancy December 20, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Last year on Memorial Day I heard the same sound being broadcast over my very quiet neighborhood. I was astounded. I had to go in my car back several streets to find the source of it. By then the prayer was over and I saw I guy with chairs set up in his back yard and people were going there to listen to him talk. I was really disturbed by the whole thing. Had forgotten about it. I’ve never heard it since then.

  35. 96 eddie h. December 20, 2010 at 11:46 pm

    doesnt any one else other than me find it sickening that the republicans just sit there and help pass legislation for the usurpur soetoro/ obama to sign? if so i do not see this disgusting fact expressed. the signs are there for 2011 business as usual.

    • 97 slcraig December 21, 2010 at 12:22 pm

      No, its because it will NOT be biz as usual next year that the RINO’s are coming out of the closet.

      Take names and campaign against the ‘traitors’ to the Republic.

      What was once the ‘Greatest Deliberative Body in the World’ is, at the moment, the ‘Greatest’ threat to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and NATIONAL SECURITY our Nation has every endured.

      Suggested Campaign slogan for 2012;

      “Not ‘just say no to Socialism’, but, ‘Hell-No’.

  36. 98 slcraig December 21, 2010 at 12:03 pm


    The following is excerpted from a case filed and pending at a U.S.District Court on the subject of natural born Citizen, insofar as citizenship is concerned preceded by a statement of fact and is offered in order to clarify why the Courts, including the Military Courts-Martial are unable to litigate the subject when presented as a ‘political question’;

    1] Currently, as of the date and time of this Motion/Notice, there is no ‘legally’ acknowledged definition of the Constitutional idiom of ‘natural born Citizen’ as found in the Executive qualification Clause at Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution of the United States, not in any specific declaratory words within the Constitution, not in any promulgated Legislation Codified to Statutes, not in any Amendment to the Constitution, not in any Declaratory Statement and/or Judgement emanating from any level of the Constitutionally authorized Judiciary, notwithstanding the ‘Act to make uniform the laws of naturalization’ of the 1st Congress of 1790, repealed by the 3rd Congress of 1795 and various orbiter dicta of the courts.

    (Case filed)

    Preliminary Appeal from Administrative Decision


    NOW COMES, Plaintiff, Claiming to be of the Constitutionally recognized form of Citizenship known as a ‘natural born Citizen’ of the United States of America, Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution of the United States, seeking review pursuant the Administrative Procedures Act,5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq, Subpoena duces tecum pursuant 28 U.S.C Rule §§ 45, Preliminary Injunction pursuant 28 U.S.C. Rule §§ 65, Declaratory Judgement pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2201, §§ Rule 57.


    12] The issue of who is a “natural born citizen” in conformity with Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is an issue of legal interpretation outside the Constitutional authority of the Congress and the Executive Branch.

    The judicial branch interprets the promulgated laws of this nation which may give rise to ‘cases and controversies’ and where no such statutes exist it rests upon the Courts to interpret the requirements of the Constitution when remedies are otherwise found lacking and yet deemed appropriate.

    In this instance it is the very fact of the proscription upon the Congress preventing promulgation of a ‘law’ which would provide a statutory definition upon the subject matter idiom when it is required that the Congress necessarily yields to the Separation of Powers when looking toward those Article‘s of the Executive.

    It is only by an Amendment could the Congress come close to asserting its imprimatur upon the idiom, however, lacking a ‘legal’ definition prior to an Amendment, then any definition given within such an Amendment would again become subject to judicial review, requiring the defining of the original definition, meaning and intent by the Judiciary in order to make the determination if the ‘Amended’ definition, meaning and intent is indeed Constitutional.

    The ‘cart’ has been hitched ‘before’ the horse on this issue far too long. This action is intended to place the elements of the question of the definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen in the proper order and context; i.e., in the 1st instant it is a ‘citizenship’ question with the ‘transient political aspect’ being secondary to its nature.

    It is not necessary for the Plaintiff to assert a definition, meaning and intent of the subject idiom, and, notwithstanding the documents attached to the N-600 Application for Certification of Citizenship indicating that Plaintiff is in conformity to the Constitutional usage of natural born Citizen and the statements and citations previously submitted in support of the assertion, Plaintiff makes no further assertions as to the ‘legal’ Constitutional definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, but rather, Plaintiff asserts that it is the duty and obligation of this court, under the Oaths of Office, to seek, determine, define and Declare the ‘legal’ Constitutional definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen as found in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, while looking narrowly to the Founding Documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutions of the various States and the Constitution its-self, acknowledging the lack of any Amendments or Statutes that may have abridged, enlarged and or modified the idiom in any way since the day it was written into the Clause of the Constitution, notwithstanding the repeal of the 1790 naturalization Act by the Congress of 1795.

    Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 pg 174;

    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, ……”

    Elk Grove Unified School District et al v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).
    Justice O’Connor, concurring in the opinion;

    “There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution — no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them”.

    Insofar as Plaintiff is aware there have been no other ‘persons’ of any sort who have approached the Court seeking acknowledgement of the ‘legal’ Constitutional definition of the idiom of natural born Citizen, insofar as Citizenship is concerned, by way of Declaratory Judgement so that it may be compared to their own circumstances of citizenship condition.

    Plaintiff speculates that if the construction of the subject Clause were to read; ‘No one but a person selected from that portion of the citizenry that are the natural born Citizens SHALL be…..“ it would be more plain to comprehend the fundamental nature of the subject idiom to the Representative Republic and perhaps it would not have been left to this Plaintiff to ask the Constitutional question nor left to this Court to embrace or rebuff the effort.

    “The question of whether a statutory provision has a mandatory or directory character is one of statutory construction. . . . ‘Shall’ is considered presumptively mandatory unless there is something in the context or the character of the legislation which requires it to be looked at differently.”.

    • 99 Bridgette December 21, 2010 at 5:51 pm

      What is the URL for this lawsuit? It will be interesting to see who is filing this and who the attorneys are.

      • 100 slcraig December 21, 2010 at 10:03 pm

        I will post it once I get the Marshal’s return of service and they are posted on the Docket; 12/17/2010 6 Amended PRO SE LITIGANT’S REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF 5 SUMMONS(ES) for OKWD US Atty, US Atty, USCIS, and Dept of Homeland Security (Napolitano), Dept of Homeland Security (Perry Rhew) by Steven Lee Craig. (cps) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

        I am putting out excerpts in the effort to get people to understand that it is NOT a ‘political question’ but rather, in the 1st, instance it is a ‘citizenship question’.

        It is a National disgrace that the Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Dem0Rin0Rats have successfully hidden the fact that there is NO ‘legally acknowledged definition of natural born Citizen, which, in a rational world would lead people to understand that there can be NO POTUS ‘legally’ in office.

        But we are directed to chasing wild geese and looking for proof of red herrings.

        I hope to end that but on the fence insofar as optimism /pessimism of the Courts are concerned.

        This case is started in the USDC and will most certainly go to the USCA and SCOTUS in that I doubt either of the lower courts would have the courage to provide the relief I ask in their Courts, i.e., a Declaratory Judgment defining the requisite circumstances of being born an American natural born Citizen in conformity to and as enunciated in A2S1C5 of the Constitution, insofar as citizenship is concerned.

  37. 101 charlesmountain December 21, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    I follow this blog daily along with several others including citizen wells. It gives me great hope to know that there are many others who feel the same way as I do. Most of my life I was a happy and carefree chap, taking for granted my country and its liberties. But now as I grow older, I read much more than before. We need to teach our children what was barely touched on in my youth, the importance of understanding the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. We must also teach them the greatness of our Founding Fathers and Framers. Our children must read the actual correspondence between these great men in their own words. They must know of their courage, sacrifice, humility and wisdom that gave birth to our beloved republic. For those that do, they will be moved and inspired indeed. We shall not let our Founding Fathers down! Our struggle is nothing compared to their sacrifice in blood, sweat and toil. They are watching us….and we know the path we must take. We must follow a course that leads to the removal of The Great Pretender through an act of Congress. I have emailed and spoken to as many family members, friends and associates that will listen. Lt. Col. Lakin’s effort will not be in vain. Let it be the spark that ignites the tinder and fuels the beginning of the second Revolution! One day we will tell our grandchildren how this great Patriot was willing to stand up to tyranny in order to pursue the truth and uphold our Constitution. May God Bless Lt. Col. Lakin and his family!

  38. 102 Gullible Birther December 21, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    Thanks LTC Lakin for providing us an outlet to accept many 10s of dollar donations on your behalf. The money well had just about dried up after the previous 72 cases were dismissed in court and so you provided us with a new cause célèbre. Much like those during the Terri Schiavo affair we had the foresight and huge juevos to go with our guts and collect on your misery. We went against all evidence, reality, better judgment and every possible notion that could be considered sane to provide a support group for like minded scammers. For this we will be forever grateful. So please tell your former colleagues to step up to the challenge and question Obama’s eligibility so that we can continue keeping the paypal buttons clicking.

    The Movement

    • 103 slcraig December 21, 2010 at 5:35 pm

      You sarcasm is not un-noticed and your cynicism that this is a ‘cottage industry’ speaks loudly of your intellectual dishonesty and lack of discernment of which issues and battles are worth fighting for and worthy of supporting, like the integrity of the Constitution.

      Spoof, belittle and raze all you will while WE sing Yankee Doodle to OUR OWN words and deeds.

    • 104 justafly December 21, 2010 at 5:51 pm

      Do not donate if you don’t want to. This is not socialistic endeavor where one’s cash is taken at the muzzle of a gun. Isn’t freedom wonderful?

    • 105 charlesmountain December 21, 2010 at 5:57 pm

      If you think your post, opinion or misrepresentation of the facts have any bearing on any of the core issues then you are indeed sadly mistaken. Your approach does nothing but fuel the fire of a movement that grows larger every day and will not go away. Thank you for your reinforcing yet useless opinion.

    • 106 Papoose December 21, 2010 at 7:46 pm

      the Bowel Movement

      if the COLB was TP, you wouldn’t need your sock.

      (Gullible is really gullible.)

      ~ Talk about Paypal, hmmmmm

      IP for sale!

    • 107 bdwilcox December 21, 2010 at 9:18 pm

      Nothing like belittling this movement by comparing it to one of the most important movements in this country’s history. You know, the one where we tried to prevent you and your national socialist buddies from reimplementing Aktion T4. The blood of the innocents cries out to God against you.

  39. 109 drkate December 21, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    ADMIN NOTE: I left the “gullible birther comment” but put his ip in spam. Have at it 🙂

  40. 110 tfb December 22, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Citizen is not the same as Natural Born Citizen; it is accepted that one citizen parent can transmit citizenship, but not natural born citizen-ship.

    It’s already in our laws that way, is a child is born in the US not subject to jurisdiction (as in being a citizen of another country by virtue of both parents being noncitizens), then that child is not a citizen (special case exists where parents are permanent residents). If a child is born of 1 native parent in-country, they are also citizens, etc. None of these are natural born citizens however.

  41. 111 slcraig December 22, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Intellectual honesty on this subject has not been consistent within our guv’mnt, in the courts or among the public.

    The fact is, at the moment there is no ‘legally acknowledged definition’ of the Constitutional idiom.

    Vattel is clear as to what his ‘definition’ is, it is a matter of bias as to how a person choses to understand it, but in the context of forming a new ‘state’ and projecting how it would evolve the word ‘indigenous'(indigene) refers to the descendent’s of the founders and 1st ‘people/citizens’ of the new ‘state’, not to whatever other ‘inhabitants’ of the land there may be in existence, only those that are party to the social contract and born into it.

    Aristotle thought that perhaps there could be NO ‘real’ citizens until 3 or 4 generations had come, thinking it would take such time to establish the true character of a ‘state’ removed from the turmoils and necessities of its making.

    The judicial dicta of the seminal Supreme Court Opinion in Scott v. Sandford is taken to be applicable to Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution and specifically to add clarity for determining the definition of the idiom therein, ‘natural born Citizen;

    “[I]t is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State [p407] which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States…”
    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)

    This is a clear and concise as it gets and puts to rest the idea that there was a ‘jus soli’ grant of ‘automatic’ citizenship within any of the various states before the 14th Amendment and logic must inform that there would have been NO need for the 14th had ‘jus soli’ existed before the 14th.

    • 112 tfb December 22, 2010 at 9:10 am

      The founders embedded that into article ii, so it is defined in the Constitution.
      The grandfather clause allowed birthright citizens to be president if alive at time of ratification in 1787; thereafter only natural born Citizens could be POTUS. Thus, Citizen is not the same as natural born Citizen. In all cases the grandfather-clause presidents who were “born citizens”, could not have been oath-naturalized, and thus the term “natural born Citizen” has to mean something besides what a “born citizen” means.
      All of the first five presidents were born in the colonies and so were their parents except for Thomas Jefferson whose mother was English, but she naturalized.
      The first naturalization oath law was not implemented until 1790.
      So we have oath naturalized who were never eligible to be president.
      Then birthright naturalized who were temporarily eligible to be president.
      And lastly natural born Citizens who, once they were possible (they are all second generation citizens) were eligible to be president.

      Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother but she was a US citizen before his birth.
      Woodrow Wilson’s mother was born in England but was a naturalized US Citizen.
      Chester Arthur’s father did not naturalize before his birth and was born in Ireland, so Chester was the first usurper.
      James Buchanan both had an Irish father who naturalized before his birth.
      Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England and she could not have oath-naturalized but this was covered by the grandfather clause, since
      Jefferson was born in Virginia and was a “born citizen”.
      Andrew Jackson’s parents were both born in Ireland but naturalized in the USA.

      Of course Obama’s father never naturalized ever, the only parent of a president who never was American.

      • 113 RacerJim December 22, 2010 at 10:13 am

        Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro is indeed the second usurper POTUS, and the first usurper POTUS whose father was never an American citizen of any type. Historic election indeed!

      • 114 slcraig December 22, 2010 at 10:43 am


        Grandfather Clause Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States provides in the pertinent part:

        “[N]o person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

        The ‘fact’ that two conditions of ‘citizenship’ are expressed within the same Clause is instructive of the acknowledged distinctions between First and Second generation Citizens defined variously by circumstances accumulating of place, time, human condition and political acts. The ‘fact’ that the Founding generation was exempted from the proscription makes clear that they considered their-selves as First generation Citizens of a New Nation and did NOT utilize the political prerogative to ‘deem’ them-selves ‘as if’ ‘‘natural born Citizens’ thereby establishing the Second generation Citizen requisite as inviolable for the purposes of the Clause and the condition of being a natural born Citizen unassailable by political acts while under the protection of the Constitution.

        “[t]o ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
        [excerpt; The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America]

        • 115 tfb December 22, 2010 at 1:56 pm

          I like that simplification

          all naturalized citizens are first generation citizens, meaning all of them have at least one first generation tied to a foreign country

          all natural born citizens have zero first generation ties to a foreign country

          • 116 slcraig December 22, 2010 at 2:37 pm

            Thumbs up!!

            …and please bare in mind that ALL women acquired the citizenship of their husbands up until 1922, so if a woman married a ‘foreigner not-naturalized’ she would LOOSE her US Citizenship……..such was the case under the Articles of Confederation forward…! and also, notwithstanding the protestations of the 0’bot’s, birth is NOT a solitary act by the child and PARENTS ARE RELEVANT at the time of birth…!!!

  42. 117 slcraig December 22, 2010 at 8:44 am

    “in tansitu” is Not a claim to ‘citizenship’ and “animo manendi”, (where the heart is/ where allegiance is) was/is required by declaration of intention and later an Oath.

    “Citizenship” is, by MUTUAL CONSENT, the acceptance of and into a civil society, ergo, American citizenship is by the MUTUAL CONSENT of accepting the obligations of and the protections from the Constitution of the United States which operates under the Rule of Law and Laws.

    There was not, prior to the 14th Amendment, any expression of ‘jus soli’ Citizenship grant UNDER the LAWS of the US, zero, zip, nada.<period

    It has been a source of confusion that many court decisions contain dicta that continued to refer to certain persons as aliens and/or foreigners even after they declared intent to naturalize or were naturalized and too, in some cases, by judicial naturalization, made some persons citizens against the advice and protestations of opposing counsel, usually Guv'mnt officials following the Rule of Law.

    So the lines of distinctions have been blurred and incorrect interpretations have been made, but, nevertheless, prior to the 14th, there were NO 'jus soli' grants of citizenship under the Rule of Law of the United States.

    • 118 drkate December 22, 2010 at 1:05 pm

      This series of material from you has been fascinating, please continue. Thanks.

    • 119 tfb December 25, 2010 at 8:36 pm

      That is true… the CRA1866 says if a person has any foreign allegiance they are not citizens at all, then in 1868 the 14th was passed, then in 1870 the CRA1866 was reenacted verbatim to emphasize the assertion. This was the time of Gray and Chester Arthur and US v WKA’s muddying of the waters.

  43. 120 slcraig December 22, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Thank you DrKate;

    Soon, soon, soon I will have my day in Court, and know that I am there for you, LTC Lakin, CDR Kerchner and all of those who have been compelled to DO SOMETHING and all of those who lend their encouragements, hopes, prayers and support.

    I AM a natural born Citizen and I intend to have that ‘legally acknowledged’ by OUR ‘controlling legal authorities’, i.e., every American Citizen.

    You were addressing that to me, weren’t you….?LOL

    • 121 tfb December 25, 2010 at 5:23 pm

      What is the corporate headquarter address for Corporation Constitution USA in DC? It’s not the White House, where is it incorporated, at what address?

      • 122 slcraig December 25, 2010 at 6:45 pm

        I don’t have a clue as to what you are asking….

        Listen, I have been there since day one with hopes high for Berg, Leo, Orly, and all the others that were compelled to DO SOMETHING to correct the slight of Usurpation being inflicted upon the Constitution, including Petitioning for a Writ of Quo Warranto.

        But in studying all of the cases and the responses from the Courts a ‘light’ came on in my understanding of the dilemma.

        There is NO ‘legal’ definition of the idiom of natural born Citizen and lacking the definition PRIOR to attacking the Usurper all cases carry the baggage of the “POLITICAL QUESTION”, which the Courts CAN NOT HEAR and stay FAITHFUL their selves to the Constitution.

        Leo Donofrio provided the seeds of that understanding even though he has not necessarily been supportive of my ‘legal theory’, concerned with the unintended consequences that could potentially arise in a decision.

        But the FACT remains, i.e., asking in the context of the ‘Political Question’ continues to fail and I continue to be compelled to do SOMETHING.

        • 123 tfb December 25, 2010 at 7:50 pm

          I am reading this article…it makes sense. Let me know what you think. And sorry for thinking you were an obot (I hope that doesn’t come back to bite me).
          Per this author…
          In light of the fact that US Citizens are corporate fiction entities, and have no rights under the constitution unless they assert themselves as sovereigns…they can only do this by refusing the status as corporate fiction, or by being a non-US citizen, and they must sue the corporate headquarters. The Constitution is a Trust, we are its “beneficiaries” and yet as such we lack any rights to know the rules set forth by the trustee. Government officials are mere agents of the Corporation, they are not the presiding force, and that’s what I want to know…who/what/where can a sovereign sue.
          I saw a story recently of a woman who was being harassed by Capital One, they said she owed $23 million but she didn’t. They had taken a false amount as her debt, then compounded fees and interest and were calling her nonstop and threatening her and her finances. She hired an attorney who is filing a class action lawsuit. But I had a similar experience with a credit card company and could not get them to back off, all over a false charge of an enormous amount, so I just hunted down their corporate headquarters and sued them in small claims court and they folded in 5 seconds flat. Now what I did was interesting, because in my state this company had no less than 25 quasi-addresses (credit, equity, banking, loan, finance what-have-you) and none would tell me whether they were the corporate headquarters in my state, so I just served them ALL. At about the same time I received about 20 letter saying “we don’t know who you are or what you want but you’ve got the wrong address” I also hit paydirt and the next day they settled, “what do you want to settle this?” I prevailed and even got expenses for several things.
          Pelosi said slyly once that Americans would like to know how government REALLY works…well after reading this article, combined with my experience, I want to go for the head of the snake as a sovereign. I think this may have some merit. I know it sounds strange, but I know now that the conventional routes are a total runaround SHAM and set up to spend us out and get us nowhere. WE have to go for the guy behind the controls…somehow…and it aint through scotus.

          • 124 tfb December 25, 2010 at 8:01 pm

            What this article emphasizes, is that every time we accept token benefits such as social security or what have you, notice your name is in all caps? That is their designation of “you” as a corporate fiction. In order to receive your trust benefits, you have to check the box, under penalty of perjury that you are a US Citizen…but in this case you are self identifying as a corporate possession.

            “Those Americans who do not know how to assert their beneficiary status are treated by the corporate government and their corporate courts as a corporate fiction. The corporate governments and their courts only have jurisdiction over corporations. Corporations have no rights or jurisdiction over living people and are only provided considerations, which have been pre-negotiated in contracts by their directors. Otherwise, they’re governed totally by commercial law and so are you.”

            So what we’re really fighting over it the abuse of the agents, sometimes criminal abuse, of the assets of the trust (our country). We THINK we are sovereigns but we are not, and we are duped into giving away our very own status.

            I hope others can help me digest this as it’s all new to me. I once asked a lawyer about the Bar “secret oath” swearing lawyers to negotiate debt to Britain, loyalty to the Queen and they just changed the subject rapidly. So WHO KNOWS about that…but I do know the beating heart is not where we think it is.

            • 125 tfb December 25, 2010 at 8:14 pm

              Now there’s a lot of things I’m coming across that ostensibly “debunk” the above, but I always wonder when a liberal newspaper like this expends so much energy on a rather smallish topic…

              • 126 tfb December 25, 2010 at 8:26 pm

                this article does not dispute the US as corporation, it says the US “has” a corporation…whatever that means!

                it also does not define US Citizen as does the rise up for America article (as a corporate fiction)…

                the article ties in to this corporation thesis as being all crazy militia types, but my emphasis is only on the legal structures if indeed there is a corporate status with which to deal…it seems like the author is desperate to paint this as all ‘whackos’ and knowingly omits large areas of the issue…the author travis barton is a 28 year old liberal birther basher — figures…
                now I know he’s not legitimate…time to hit the reads again
                anyone with opinions on this?

              • 127 slcraig December 25, 2010 at 8:43 pm

                Well, yes, I agree that the Guv’mnt is corrupt and have written statutory language that perpetuates the corruption, however, the Supremacy Clause has NOT been Amended notwithstanding the harms and assaults upon it.

                I say that with the high hopes that what I want to believe is true.

                Let us see how the Guv’mnt responds to a ‘natural born Citizen’ seeking to be acknowledged, insofar as citizenship is concerned.

                Dig deep and understand the implications apart from the ‘trivial eligibility’ issue that if it is found that natural born Citizens do not exist ‘distinguishable’ from any other form of citizenship.

                A Clause of the Constitution will then be said to have NO EFFECT and if ONE CLAUSE has NO EFFECT then NO Clauses can be said to have ANY EFFECT.

              • 128 tfb December 25, 2010 at 8:49 pm

                Is this true?
                the article says:
                “look up the definition of a “United States Citizen” in a reputable law dictionary. You will discover that a United States Citizen is a phrase designed to identify a “corporate fiction.” Clever, isn’t it? You and every other American had no idea that you were admitting you were a “corporate fiction” when you circled that YES answer and you did it under penalty of perjury.”

              • 129 tfb December 25, 2010 at 9:11 pm

                this may sound like a trite idea, but what if we just put our name in small letters and instead of circling US citizen, wrote in “natural born Citizen”? Maybe it’s not so trite?
                I just feel like there’s an inroad somewhere we’re missing, just like me and how my Goliath credit card company capitulated in 5 seconds, whereas this other woman is still fighting with her lawyer…like the “Joshua” side door password on the War Games NORAD computer…
                again, I really feel that we’re missing the real picture

              • 130 tfb December 25, 2010 at 9:25 pm

                yes, I remember hearing about you a long time ago now that I think back…you wanted to be defined as a NBC, and they weren’t having it…

                well I have officially converted my status from US Citizen to natural born Citizen…because that’s what I am

                all gov’t forms I receive have name in caps, but the rest of their text is normal upper/lower case…could be meaningless but it seems to tie in with the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Inc.) story in the article above

  44. 131 slcraig December 26, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Well, again, I agree that the Guv’mnt has been playing fast and loose with the authorities they have, setting up Rules and Regulations within Departments and Corporations with which they use to further their corruption.

    But I find NO Amendments to the Constitution that sanction MUCH of what has been done through the manipulation of words and convolutions of intents so that the restoring of order and the enforcing of the Constitution is a matter of washing off the filth of corruption at the ballot box.

    I have read that the 1st order of business for the incoming House of Representatives is to Read the Constitution from the Floor of the House. Some may scoff and some may think that irrelevant, but not I.

  1. 1 | Trackback on December 20, 2010 at 4:00 am
  2. 2 “Do not attempt to intimidate a Mustang Naval Commander” | justafly Trackback on December 20, 2010 at 5:57 am
  3. 3 THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY OF THE ELIGIBILITY-DENIERS‏ « The Ghostfighters Trackback on December 22, 2010 at 6:12 pm
  4. 4 The Breach of Article II « drkatesview Trackback on January 2, 2011 at 2:56 am
  5. 5 By What Authority? « drkatesview Trackback on January 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm
  6. 6 Sell-Out Obamas « drkatesview Trackback on January 18, 2011 at 11:33 pm
  8. 8 Trump Card Beats Race Card « drkatesview Trackback on March 28, 2011 at 1:12 pm
  10. 10 Making a List and Checking it Twice — Obama OBOTS Compiling an Enemies List This Christmas Season | CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog Trackback on December 2, 2013 at 6:06 pm
Comments are currently closed.

December 2010
« Nov   Jan »

Recent Comments

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 American Spectator

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Button 1 120 by 90

%d bloggers like this: