The Intellectual Dishonesty of the Eligibility-Deniers

©2010 drkate

(Author’s note, 12/22).  This post was published at 10 pm last night and by early this morning, the key portion on the Lakin trial had been deleted.  I have recreated that section to the best of my recollection.)

Intellectual dishonesty is:

  • the advocacy of a position known to be false.
  • An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one’s deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The intellectual dishonesty of the eligibility deniers, including chief Obama, the left, the 111th Congress, the so-called ‘media’, the Courts, the attorneys, and now the military,  has been completely and cleanly exposed by their strenuous efforts to defend Obama’s lack of Article II eligibility against all evidence to the contrary. While their petty goal is to ruin and ridicule anyone who raises the issue, their feigned superiority betrays a significant moral decay and fundamental anti-Americanism.

Unfortunately for America, in knowingly defending the breach of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause of Article II, these entities commit  ‘treason to the constitution‘.   And so appropriately for the deniers, they face easily documented misprision of felony and misprision of treason charges. For  this kind of fundamental intellectual dishonesty is endangering the Nation.

Usurper v USA

This essay has been brewing since the Lakin  K- ‘court martial’, where so many of the tawdry tools and false arguments of the deniers came into sharp focus.  Bearing witness to the convoluted machinations required to protect the undocumented Obama.  It was disheartening to observe the collaboration among the prosecution, defense, and certain military bloggers sitting in ‘gallery’ to railroad LTC Lakin using the rhetoric of intellectual dishonesty.  But the truth ultimately wastes these collaborators, for when confronted with it, they can’t handle it.

This collaborative effort–not only in the Lakin case but characterizing all efforts to conceal the truth about Obama–has been a racket, a money-maker and reputation ‘booster’ (if you consider misprision of felony a ‘booster’ for your career) for the willing fools who carry along with it, not knowing that in the end they will be treated as ‘useful idiots‘ and FEMA-camped like the rest of us.  The flat-earth, eligibility deniers are involved not in  a conspiracy, but in fact an association to perpetuate fraud.  They have high level allies in this endeavor, at great peril to the American people.

How It Works

Intellectual dishonesty is an ethical blunder that stems from self-deception or a covert agenda, which is expressed through a misuse of various rhetorical devices.

The eligibility-deniers’ ethical blunder is knowingly ignoring the evidence that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, and it is based on the incorrect self-deception that their reading of the Constitution is correct.  They ignore history, precedent, and willfully mis-interpret key cases on citizenship as somehow controlling on ‘natural born’ citizenship.  They refuse to acknowledge that an Article II natural born citizen is different than a Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen of the United States’.

And somehow, with all the education and experience, they can’t quite grasp that the Founders intended to use language for the requirement of the CIC that Americans would always understand without the employ of lawyers and pundits…and certainly those who were educated in civics in the 40’s and 50’s can recite that a natural born citizen is born in the country of two citizen parents.  The eligibility-deniers must have skipped that class in grade school.

Intellectual dishonesty takes many forms. The self-deceptions that bolster our sense of self-worth are perhaps wired into human nature and certainly have survival value. Simple plagiarism passes off someone else’s words as one’s own. The petty crime becomes intellectual dishonesty when the plagiarism is employed to bolster a public perception of one’s own intellectual strength or authority.

Selective reading of history designed to support an agenda must figure into the eligibility deniers’ strategy to ultimately bolster their own ‘intellectual strength’ or authority.  But its effect is also to protect Obama and prevent any discussion of his dual allegiance or non-natural born citizen status.

The rhetorical devices used include the following:

  • The label “Birther”–used to dishonestly misinterpret and denigrate Article II and to promote the agenda that ‘natural born Citizen’ means ‘born in the USA’. By promoting this incomplete definition, the eligibility deniers further reveal the house of cards by which they judge Obama to be ‘eligible’–an electronic image of a COLB that not only not a birth certificate, but is forged. Have our standards become so low?  Yet a decorated, 18- year LTC Lakin could not have reported to the Pentagon for duty with an electronic image of a COLB.

The media has been the most important vehicle for the propaganda of a ‘birth certificate’ and the acceptance of a forged, electronic image of a COLB as equivalent to a valid birth certificate.  This focus on the birth certificate has removed the important concepts of allegiance, dual citizenship, and ‘natural born citizenship’ from discussion and importantly, from the public’s understanding of the breach of Article II.

Here are some example’s of the media’s on-going deception:

The Baltimore Sun:

Lakin had become a hero of the “birther” movement when he refused to report for a second deployment to Afghanistan until he received an answer to his question of whether President Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen constitutionally eligible to be president.

Supporters of the movement say Obama, the first black president, was not born in Honolulu in August 1961. However, such conspiracy theories have largely been squelched, and the Obama campaign released his Hawaii birth certificate in 2008.

Deliberately ignored is the fact that Lakin had asked that his orders be verified as legal; that his military Chain of Command could not verify that they were; that the Judge refused to acknowledge this question as his motivation and refused him evidence based on it being ’embarrassing’ to the pResident; and that in the end, Lakin was sentenced for having asked a question.  And, the Obama campaign did not release a ‘birth certificate’. The  absolute intellectual dishonesty of this reporter, and the newspaper who allows her to write,  is on full display.  The ethical lapse follows in providing an essentially untruthful report that perpetuates Obama’s usurpation.

The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd

We can always count on elitist Dowd’s intellectual dishonesty when reporting on anything related to Obama’s lack of Article II eligibility. Her fundamental ethical lapse is that she considers any examination of Obama’s eligibility ‘loony’, with an underlying tone of  ‘racist’ despite clear and compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen.  Her  ‘rhetorical devices’ appear to be name-calling, ascribing motives to people they don’t have, and diminishing the constitutional concerns regarding Obama.

“Usurper in Chief?”

“Originally, Colonel Lakin and his frenzied supporters had wanted to reveal the Ultimate Truth, what they consider the biggest hoax ever perpetrated — that a foreigner, a “Usurper in Chief,” had seized control of the Oval Office.

But then the military judge, Col. Denise Lind, denied a request for President Obama to testify and for his birth certificate to be entered into evidence.

So now the Birthers consider the court-martial part of the dastardly conspiracy. “This whole trial looks like a sham,” said Orly Taitz, a tall blonde California dentist, lawyer and leader in the Birther movement.

…he looked small and shaken as he admitted to disobeying orders from his boss, Gordon Roberts, a Medal of Honor recipient. He murmured “Yes, ma’am” over and over in a low voice as the precise Judge Lind pressed him on whether he understood that “the dictates of conscience do not justify disobeying a lawful order.”

…Some argued that whether Obama was born in Hawaii is not really the point; the point is, he’s not “a natural-born citizen.” “You must be born in the U.S. with two parents who are U.S. citizens,” they explained. Obama, they argued, has “a dual allegiance” …

But, in the end, the court-martial offers one big truth: President Obama doesn’t have to show Terry Lakin anything.

Stringing together statements from various people, which together do paint the correct definition of a natural born citizen and Obama’s lack of eligibility according to that criterion, is ascribed to ‘some argued that’, rather than the “the historical record and facts reveal that you must be born in the U.S. to two parents who are U.S. Citizens”.  And with respect to  Judge Lind, as an Officer, Lakin was required to disobey illegal orders, its not a conscience thing, and the military which you so proudly defend couldn’t and wouldn’t verify them.  Finally, finishing off with Obama doesn’t have to show Lakin anything perpetuates the agenda that Obama is legal and diminishes any question of that.

Ethical lapses produced by the intellectual dishonesty displayed here result in the perpetuation of fraudulent reporting.  The final nail in the coffin of any  credibility of all of these so-called media is their failure to report on the most obvious and important constitutional violations of the Obama regime.

The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is a round about way to say “you’re lying”.

More Rhetorical Devices
Before I begin this section, it is important to note that it has always been Barack Hussein Obama’s sole responsibility to prove himself not only to be an American citizen, but a natural born citizen.  This is aside from the arrogance of citing that ‘there is no law that requires me to prove myself’, or that no one is specifically ‘responsible’ for ensuring Obama met the Article II constitutional requirements for the office.  Failing to prove himself is the highest form of disrespect to the American people and a deliberate denigration of the Constitution.  Because the natural born citizen clause is a national security safeguard for our nation, I conclude that Obama doesn’t give one whit for the security of America.  Our soldiers are targets for his own and his masters’ objectives, and have everything to do with drugs, weapons, and oil.  I can’t name one thing that Obama has done that actually increases our safety and security–in fact, he proposes and implements the opposite.
The military court-martial of LTC Terrence Lakin was rife with intellectual dishonesty, on the part of the Judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorneys.  In the charging papers, the Army determined that LTC Lakin’s orders, orders from Obama, were ‘presumed legal’.  This was the very question that was asked by Lakin, and the army not only refused to answer the question, the Judge determined that an Officer’s request for this information was disallowed.
Let’s bring back the definition of ‘presumed legal’ to highlight the intellectual dishonesty of Judge Lind, Lakin’s chain of command, the prosecution, and the defense:

Presumed legal‘ is to take for granted that something is legal in the absence of information to the contrary.

Even a small modicum of research by Lakin’s chain of command would have easily elicited the voluminous information that exists which indicates Hussein is not a natural born citizen of the United States, and that there are numerous, credible legal challenges. This is just a basic list of  information that exists indicating that Obama is not an Article II Natural Born Citizen:

And the failure of others not to act on this information was not a reason for the Army to have ignored the issue and deliberately shoot the messenger.
In the face of considerable evidence to the contrary, the Army still ‘presumes’ Obama’s orders are legal.  Based on what?  That the issue of ‘presumed legal’ was not raised by the defense is a sign that  all of the attorneys, and the system that tried Lakin, suffer from intellectual dishonesty in knowingly participating in a kangaroo forum, where one man was being punished for everyone else’s failure, and for the purported CIC’s lack of constitutional eligibility.
Raising the question of how the Army determined the orders were presumed legal would not have been counter to Judge Lind’s instruction not to raise the issue of eligibility.  It could have elicited a response that ultimately shows the Army is assuming, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that Obama is a natural born citizen.  If assumptions are based on assumptions, then how can anyone be charged with questioning the assumption, or asking for verification?
To wit my questions to the defense counsel, during a break in proceedings:
  • How did the Army determine that Lakin’s orders were ‘presumed legal’?
  • When you are a soldier on the battlefield, do you “presume” your enemy is behind that hill, or behind the other hill?
I saw LTC Lakin standing, surrounded by enemies, with no bullets.
Guffawing at the Guilty Pleas
Individuals in the gallery have been gloating about the guilty pleas, and were even guffawing in the court room.   It is something like their ‘intellect’ and reading of the constitution and 14th amendment was guiding them to say ‘I told you so’, completely ignoring the entire conduct of this case.  It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to convict Lakin in the public’s mind on a charge they know to be false.
I wonder how it feels to these people to know they are defending a lie?  Or to laugh at the conviction of a Patriot?  To sit in a courtroom with the privileges of being an American, and actively tear down the system that nurtured.  I know now what the phrase ‘sick puppies’ means.
The Constitution Wins
As does the truth.  Obama is ineligible to serve as CIC, and the courts, military, Congress, the media know it, and are complicit in a cover-up the likes of which have never been exposed so clearly.  The Patriots who have endured the ridicule, the threats, the ruination,  and jail–at such great risk to self and family–deserve all of our thanks for fully exposing the truth of Obama and the orchestrated plan to occupy the White House.
I conclude that the Article II Constitutionalists, aka, Birthers, have won this argument of ‘natural born citizen’ hands down.  And we’ve done it through research, through using the proper means of challenge, and the only thing the opposition has succeed in doing is showing how shallow they are, and frankly, how un-American.  In all their ‘intellect’ they have been reduced to name calling, throwing sticks and stones, and inventing new ways to describe their ‘flat earth’ , ‘man-made’ mindset.  To this day, and despite evidence to the contrary, these anti-Americans persist in grinding America down.
We know who we are:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

185 Responses to “The Intellectual Dishonesty of the Eligibility-Deniers”

  1. 1 drkate December 21, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    Pretending to be ignorant of the issue is as about obtuse as one can get. It also makes them look really stoopid! 😛

  2. 4 Papoose December 21, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    I have only read half of this retrospect and I am compelled to say for the first time in my entire Life its only been 2 1/2 years since I felt truly hated because I am an American.

    Brava, drkate.

    They are lying about eligibility through an through. You have to be an American to be POTUS/ CIC, that is a full blooded American at the time of your birth and born on sacred American soil.

    If one of your parents was once a foreigner, yet naturalized at the time of your birth, you are a NBC.

    When I was a child we had an influx of Cuban immigrant’s children enrolling in our school. We welcomed them with open arms. We learned very early on the difference between People who were seeking the American dream and those who inherited automatically. The the Beatles came.

    America is not a Doormat. The re-education is not working. Our Immigrants should listen to us so that they will be affirmed in the future. Or else they will be usurped, as well, in due time.

    No Doubt.

    Sheeple caught in the corral; gate closes. They are done.

    Maybe since they didn’t build our cities, they are not invested.

    Here for the taking.

  3. 5 drkate December 22, 2010 at 9:41 am

    I published this post last night but somehow it didn’t take so i republished it again. Please let me know if you continue to have problems getting to this site…i am undertaking a complete transfer of the site to a new version of WP

    • 6 Lee M December 22, 2010 at 6:59 pm

      Dr.Kate, I visit your site every day, sometimes twice, but I don’t think I’ve ever posted.

      Yesterday, Dec 21, at about midnight EST, I visited and the post (Intellectual Dishonesty) was up and I read it in its entirety. About twenty minutes later I decided I would comment and when I tried to get the post back I kept coming up with a “404 error”, the page was not available. I tried about an hour later and got the same message. I knew something was wrong because I had rec’d the post without problems at midnight. Needless to say, I tried several more times with no luck, until I was able to get back to the computer just now and found your re-post.

      Several days ago I remember some of your readers were under the impression the something underhanded was going on. I’m inclined to agree.

      I just want to thank you for what you are doing, and say keep up the good wowrk. You must be hitting a nerve somewhere for these things to happen.

      So much for Net Neutrality.

      • 7 drkate December 22, 2010 at 7:18 pm

        Thank you for that verification.

        • 8 Papoose December 22, 2010 at 8:32 pm

          same thing happened to me. I saved the page last night so it appeared this morning on that tab, but was gone on an independent tab.

          That’s okay. If it weren’t for the candidacy of The One, we would still be in the dark with respect to the Progressive movement to transform America fundamentally. And further, if it weren’t for the Court Martial of LTC Terrence Lakin, we would not be aware of how they have infiltrated the military.

          The 21st Century Gates:

          Robert Gates – Defense

          Bill Gates – Internet/ Vaccines / Monopoly

          Henry Lewis Gates – Education/ Stupid Cops/ Teachable Moments

      • 9 slcraig December 24, 2010 at 1:55 pm

        I encountered that problem too, but then I noticed that the ‘lables’ on the ‘input boxes’ for ‘name’, ’email’ and ‘web address’ are out of sinc. (Maybe it’s just an intermitten browser thing)…….

        ….anyway, when you input in the proper order it works ok.

      • 10 True Patriot December 25, 2010 at 9:27 am

        I also got error 404 for quite some time. We must be upsetting the Communists bastards or they would not bother.

        The thugs can try all they want but they will not shut us
        up period.

        So I guess Obamamow Se Tung and Mrs. Tung aka Mrs. Darth Vader
        are working overtime in Hawaii for their next coverup story on his B.C.

        Hey Mooochele. We have you on video saying your usurping fraud husband is from Kenya. Also Barwee’s grandmother.

    • 11 Jan December 23, 2010 at 2:18 am

      Yea, finally got on tonight.
      qwerty is an obat, he was on several times while you were attending the trial. A total jerk.

      • 12 True Patriot December 25, 2010 at 9:28 am

        @ Jan qwerty is a brain dead Obama Zombie right out of the “Night of the Living Dead”.

        It is a mental disease for which there is no cure.

  4. 13 ladysforest December 22, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Wonderfully written DrKate.

  5. 14 drkate December 22, 2010 at 9:50 am

    During the posting of this article, a whole section on the ‘presumed legal’ orders of Obama was left out. I am updating the post to include that now.

  6. 15 usapatriots-shout December 22, 2010 at 10:24 am

    The only enemy in the universe is IGNORANCE. There’s far too much of that these days!

    I have shouted for nearly two years regarding those who denigrate others who have the integrity to challenge Obama’s eligibility: If you don’t care enough about your country to demand the man who claims to be president, THEN YOU ARE COMPLICIT IN HIS CONSPIRACY OF CRIMES AGAINST AMERICA.

    There are many who believe Judge Napolitano and Glen Beck are fighting hard to protect our Constitution and save America. But I say:

    Oh yes, Glen Beck and Judge Napolitano are always discussing the constitution. Isn’t it interesting they never mention Article II about the Natural Born Citizen requirements? Doesn’t their silence and avoidance shout loud and clear they are complicit in the conspiracy against America?

    Even Rush Limbaugh treads lightly on the subject. I listen almost daily to Rush’s rants and rave for THREE HOURS. The most time he gives to any suggestion about Obama’s failed to produce credentials is about two minutes. Imagine the good he could do if he devoted an entire program on the subject complete with facts and statements from the attorneys who have bravely confronted the issue in the courts.

  7. 16 no-nonsense-nancy December 22, 2010 at 10:29 am

    Dr. Kate, great essay, as usual. They can’t keep denying his ineligibility forever. Things are going to come to a head soon. They have to or we are done as a republic. We have to get Terry Lakin and the others freed as soon as possible.

    I had to get to this post by clicking on the title on the right.


  8. 17 attilasdaughter December 22, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Since the beginning of this, before the election, I have never heard anything from Obots but “raaaacist” and “he’s Your president, deal with it”.
    Funny, since he is not my president, because I’m not a US-citizen and I must be a strange kind of racist since my husband is black.
    Of course there has been those Obots that twist the facts until it seems right to them. Exchanging “natural” with “native” and “natural born citizen” with “US citizen” were their favourites.
    The discovery of the Chester Arthur fraud by Leo Donofrio was even used as a point for Obama, haha.
    Dishonesty sums it up.
    Never ever was there a discussion about the fact without personal attacks, in fact there were only personal attacks and no discussion.
    When a US judge had the nerve to claim that the issue has been “twittered” oppose to looking at the fact that there is no proof or paper trail of Obamas eligibility.
    This country’s court system has openly admitted that some people are above the law and Obama’s handlers are pulling the strings.
    I really hope they woke up the sleeping dragon with their arrogance.
    The person Obama will be gone in two years, but the deeply corrupt system remains.

  9. 18 aj December 22, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    The whole corrupt media delights in lumping everyone who dares to question Obama’s citizenship into one “loony pile”. Like the people on this site, I am very educated. I hold two degrees and didn’t get where I am today by believing everything I read in the MSM. In fact, I have been taught to question and research in order to find the truth. Obama’s story smells and all his thug handlers have used him.
    My family has a very long, honorable history with the military. Today I am ashamed of the way these military judges have treated a real hero, LTC Lakin. If they would do this to LTC Lakin, tell me, are our young men and women serving this country in grave danger?!?

    • 19 tfb December 22, 2010 at 11:28 pm

      Yes, more soldiers have died under Obama in the past 2 years than 2000-2008 combined (in Afghanistan)…Obama is killing them, on purpose, and those who support Obama support this slaughter.

      Add in Start II which puts the US at nuclear risk, and those people are f*cking evil to the core.

      • 20 Papoose December 22, 2010 at 11:35 pm

        As we close out 2010, a.d.

        Let us remember the Polish People and their horrendous tragedy in losing their entire Government/ Officials and Dignitaries in one fell swoop on a Spring Morning in Russia. Thankfully that volcano blew so Houdini could attended a soccer game that wasn’t.

        Swish under the rug.

        God Bless the Polish people at Christmastime.

    • 21 True Patriot December 25, 2010 at 9:21 am

      @ aj Yes our troops are in danger, & it is getting worse.

      My son is a Blackhawk Helicopter Pilot and the violence is pretty bad, yet the corrupt traitor Communists in the news media do not mention how the war is going.

      You never see the constant pictures of dead bodies and burned out cars like you saw during the 8 years Bush was in office.

      The duplicitious bastards have the blood of this country and our troops on their hands, along of course with our illegal communist muslim usurping fraud and Jihadist.

  10. 22 bdwilcox December 22, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    Throughout this entire Obama nightmare reign, the Lakin trial was, to paraphrase Moochelle, “the first time in my adult lifetime I’m ashamed of my country.” A Soviet show-trial, nothing more.

    • 23 Papoose December 22, 2010 at 11:43 pm

      A moment of truth and a teachable moment, it. was. illuminating.

      Lets all hope that Dr. Lakin’s (LTC United States Army), Christmas prayers are answered. Light a candle.

      Sending a spiritual bouquet that all his special intentions are granted. ~ with a sprig of Holly.

  11. 24 Bridgette December 22, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Excellent article Dr. Kate.

    THE ONLY VIDEO COVERAGE FROM THE TRIAL: LTC Lakin Found Guilty of Obeying his Constitutional …

  12. 25 Bridgette December 22, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Two Fairy Star Maj. Gen. Karl Horst
    Wednesday, December 22, 2010 Snips

    As I compose this, the grinch of the military and the scrooge of the regime, in Maj. Gen. Karl Horst and B. Hussein Obama have suffered themselves to create a POW of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin in his defending the United States Constitution from all threats foreign and domestic.

    Interestingly, Barack Hussein Obama is both a foreign and domestic threat in being a foreign subject of Britain and Indonesia, and within on a mission of destruction of these United States……

    For the record, I located evidence which indeed is a psychological and command authority challenge to the kangaroo proceedings Karl Horst has tortured Terry Lakin with.

    Not so amazing, the officer Horst has all of these photos of hisself standing with either undocumented B. Hussein Obama or his accompliced Aaron Burr Biden

  13. 26 Chester December 22, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    RE: “Presumed legal‘ is to take for granted that something is legal in the absence of information to the contrary.”

    Can Presume Legal be ground for appeal?

  14. 28 Pieter Nosworthy December 22, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    I am uncertain as to whether it is “intellectual dishonesty” or a willful ignorance bordering on cowardice.

    Some ignorance is the product of political agenda or unwarranted faith in the status quo. This nation is a Republic founded on the principles of a sovereign People and reverence of Law.

    It is enough that we stop wondering if the complaint of our failures are misfeasance or malfeasance…let us just acknowledge the question deserves scrutiny regardless of the answer.


  15. 29 qwertyman December 22, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    It’s interesting that you accuse others of intellectual dishonesty for disputing your personal interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause.

    those who were educated in civics in the 40′s and 50′s can recite that a natural born citizen is born in the country of two citizen parents.

    This is your sole support for the proposition that natural born citizens must have two citizen parents AND be born in the US. For those of us who weren’t in grade school 60 or 70 years ago though, we look to what the courts and scholars and members of Congress have said.

    To be blunt, there is not a single current judge, Congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause. To the contrary, any expert who has spoken on the topic has invariably stated that anybody born in the US, with the exception of the children of diplomats or invading armies, are natural born citizens.

    You may disagree with the entirety of the current legal academia at this point, but don’t accuse others of being intellectually dishonest just because they happen to agree with them.

    • 30 drkate December 22, 2010 at 3:54 pm

      Another example of intellectual dishonesty here–claiming that it is ‘my’ interpretation of ‘natural born citizen’. Yawn.

      This guy is in spam.

    • 33 attilasdaughter December 22, 2010 at 3:58 pm

      could You provide a link to the statements of those current judge, Congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor?

      I would be interested in the quotes that say specifically that anybody born in the US (14th am.) is clearly a natural born citizen as required for the office of POTUS.

    • 34 Stock December 22, 2010 at 5:39 pm

      Uh-how about SR511? Senate seems to think so.

    • 36 True Patriot December 25, 2010 at 9:33 am

      @ qwertyman Go crawl back in your Obama Zombie casket where you belong. You are a brain dead looser and Communists, & a liar.

      Problem all you liberal radical scum now are having is most of the left is attacking your “boy”, and your trash won’t work on this site.

      The fact remains that all other legal Presidents have presented the proper documentation to be POTUS. Obama has not.

      You came out swinging at John McCain because he was born in Panama, but he proved his citizenship, Obama has not because he is an illegal communist muslim usurping fraud and Jihadist.

      So crawl back in your Zombie casket and stay there. You are a complete lunatic.

  16. 37 Pieter Nosworthy December 22, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Speaking of “intellectual dishonesty”…

    So that we, ones who contend the Constitution supreme, do no appear to be hypocrites…

    If, indeed, our beliefs are parallel with our want to act…

    Where is the outreach, the coherence, and focus necessary for redress of grievances?

    So far, this is what I have witnessed;

    1. The supremacy of “fringe” arguments outweigh the obvious defects that require no proof by the accused.

    2. The willingness of a public concerned to sacrifice those who are limited in rights due to their Duties rather than suffer as a constinuency.

    How many of you have ventured to Washington, stood on a representative’s desk, and demanded action?

    Yep, no retort required. Most if not all are comfortable asking (expecting) the most vulnerable to perform above the call of Duty sacrifice in the form of loss of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

    Those Civilians are cowards who have encouraged the likes of Lakin to abrogate obvious responsibilities without prior doing their civic likewise.


  17. 38 aprilnovember811 December 22, 2010 at 3:55 pm


    He wasn’t born in America. He was born in Mombasa, Kenya. I don’t need a court, judge, or Congress to confirm it for me. I was given a God given ability to reason. When he gave it to me, you, and others, it didn’t come with a disclaimer, “your ability to reason, and know the truth, must be confirmed by other human beings.

    At the end of August every member of Congress received by certified mail a copy of Hussein’s Kenyan birth certificate, with footprint. The silence is deafening. I think their lack of ability to accept the truth stems more from the fact that they were wrong. They know the fingers of the families of dead soldiers will be pointed at them asking, “Why didn’t you address this when people asked questions. My son, daughter, or husband died at the hands of someone who isn’t even American running a war?” They can’t accept that they failed.

    My hope is that someday, we can have our own version of the Nuremberg Trials. Then maybe we can put, the people who did this where Dr. Lakin is. Karma will catch up with them. It always does.

  18. 39 California Birther/Dualer/Doubter December 22, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    I’m spreading this helluva keeper of an essay far and wide. Shame on those cowards who all too easily lapped up the lies, were derelict in their duty and allowed for the Constitution to be desecrated in a desperate attempt to keep Obama from being exposed as the usurper he is. I fully expect Obama to switch places with Lakin once the truth smashes through and brings his criminal acts to a dead stop.

  19. 40 Katie December 22, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    vDR KATE

    Join us for an action packed show tonight. Dr. Kate is back from the LTC Terrence Lakin’s courts martial and Red is back from open heart surgery. We’ve got a lot to talk about tonight! Wait till you hear what went on at the courts martial. With everything that has been happening in the last 2 weeks, we may have to forego some of our 2010 year end wrap up until next week. We also want to give you a brief prelude to a special Walls In Our Minds we are planning for the first or second week of the new year focusing on God’s Law. We expect to have a surprise guest or 2 tonight as well.

    Tonight’s COMBINED SHOW will air from 9 to 11 Eastern or 7 to 9 Mountain time.

    Show link:

    Join us in the online chat or just listen to the stream!

    (347) 838-9176
    Phone lines will be open after the first half hour. You are welcome to also call in and just listen.

    Remember, there will be no show tomorrow night.

    If you haven’t visited Dr. Kate’s website lately, now would be a good time to learn about “Colonel Obot.”

  20. 41 Starla December 22, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    GOD IS ASKING that We The American People, and ALL People on earth allow LORD JESUS CHRIST to Lead Us In HIS ALMIGHTY & FOREVER LIVING POWER & HOLINESS & LOVE & TRUTH & WISDOM & RIGHTEOUSNESS & GRACES on earth through the enormous darkness of evils, corruption, lies, deceptions, & sins of many kinds that are being committed on earth against GOD, humanity, & animals on earth.




    (1) Guadalupe, Mexico
    (2) Lourdes, France
    (3) Fatima, Portugal
    (4) La Salette, France
    (5) Pontmain, France
    (6) Beauring, Belgium
    (7) Garabandal, Spain
    (8) Bayside, NY, USA
    (9) Banneux, Belgium
    (10) Akita, Japan
    (11) 1981 to 1989, KIBEHO, RWANDA, AFRICA
    (12) Lagos, Nigeria –
    And other locations, too.

    There has been in the past, and there is today many places on earth where LORD JESUS CHRIST – Y’SHUA is giving Warnings of the FOREVER LIVING CREATOR – ALMIGHTY GOD – THE MOST HOLY TRINITY to earth for sinful humanity to WAKE UP & STOP SINNING AGAINST GOD, as GOD is already very much too much offended with humanity’s sins against GOD & humanity & animals!

    Here are more:

    # # # #

    • 42 Paula December 23, 2010 at 8:49 am

      Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ–Col. 2:8 kjv.

      That is why the Lord Jesus came, Starla, to take the sin of the whole world upon Himself and become sin for us, so that those who will believe and trust in His work of atonement on their behalf can be forgiven and made righteous by faith in His cross, i.e., the death, burial, and resurrection.

      But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us–Romans 5:8.

      And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you ALL trespasses–Colossians. 2:13. This passage is the Apostle Paul speaking to members of the BOC, i.e., those who’ve trusted in His work alone, and not His works plus their own works. For those who trust in Christ, ALL sins are forgiven, and they are made a new creature in Christ. For those who have not yet trusted in Christ’s gospel, they are still in their sins and storing up the wrath of God upon them in the day of His wrath–see Romans 2:4-16 kjv.

      God is not punishing the sins of the world during our time, as Jesus Christ has already taken our punishment for sin. God’s grace is upon the whole world right now, but we don’t know how much longer this dispensation of His grace will last, before the Lord God’s wrath will be poured out upon the unbelievers who received not the love of the truth (the gospel of Jesus Christ), that they might be saved–see 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, kjv.

      By the way, God’s warnings can only be found in His Word, the Bible. He’s not giving any new revelations to mankind. He last spoke to and through the Apostle Paul to fulfil the word of God. Colossians 1:25–Whereof I (Apostle Paul) am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God.

      Permit me to ask the question here: Do you know who your Apostle is? Do you know that the Lord God has given the Gentiles an Apostle as His spokesman? When you know who the one Apostle is that you are to listen to as God’s spokesman to you, and you commit to listen to him and his gospel that the Lord Jesus Christ gave to him to preach and teach, then you will begin to have knowledge and understanding about God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Spirit, and what He has done in the past, what He is doing now, and what He will do in the future.

    • 43 Paula December 24, 2010 at 8:05 am

      By the way, Mary was no longer a virgin after the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, so why continue to call her the Virgin Mary? She was a sinner in need of her Saviour, just like the rest of us. It is a sin to put her upon a pedestal of worship. She doesn’t speak to anyone, as she is awaiting her resurrection when the Lord returns to earth to set up His kingdom on earth with believing Israel ruling and reigning with Him. If you are seeing/hearing “Mary” then you are listening to the evil imaginations of your own heart or you are in contact with unholy spirits. My God has made Himself known (in our day and age) through the Bible, His Word to mankind, and by His Word, I know that He does not operate like this. Let God be true, and every man a liar! Find the Truth in His Word, not some appearance of an unholy apparition.

  21. 44 justafly December 22, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    Great article drkate, as usual. How did Lawyer Pukett answer your questions? Or did he not respond?

    P.S. At least the ACLU was there to guard against any violations of Dr. Lakin’s civil rights……..maybe not so much. Never mind.

    • 45 drkate December 22, 2010 at 7:17 pm

      I did not receive an answer, but I will never forget the look on his face.

    • 46 Papoose December 22, 2010 at 7:41 pm

      No one gave a crap about Pastor Manning’s civil rights, thats for sure.

      The ACLU apparently has an agenda and it is not pretty.

      There were persons in the observer’s gallery that had close pals on the other side of the rail. It was sad to witness. It was disheartening to have knowledge of the obvious camaraderie under the circumstances. There was nothing funny about any aspect of the trial.

      It was a crying shame.

      All that is needed for the Country and the World-at-large is to release the Commander in Chief’s documents. He has admitted that his psuedo autobiographies are composites of characters and circumstances.

      President Bill Clinton declared the candidate of producing Fairy Tales during the primaries. He stated that if the candidate was eligible “under the Constitution” then go for it. He was in Africa when he made that statement. He was being honest on his intellectual discourse.

      The candidate claimed he never heard a word of American dissent or hatred for white Americans from the pulpit of his Church, an extension of his home, in the twenty years he attended.


      With respect to Father Phleger humping Hillary Clinton during worship in the same church, a mere “guest appearance” at TUCC during campaign, the great orator stated:

      “Pfleger’s words were “divisive” and “backward-looking.”

      Geez, talk about intellectual dishonesty.

  22. 47 Papoose December 22, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    When a panel of 8 Government Members, all career Officers in the Armed Services sitting as jurors need to send a question to the Judge as they deliberate behind closed doors, asking what is the definition of the word “required”, you are assured they cannot think for themselves and need guidance in conviction.

    Seriously, they asked that question when deliberating to convict on the 1st charge of “missing movement by design” or the minor subcharge alternative known as “failing to report”.

    The evidence clearly showed that the Accused failed to report to Fort Campbell KY in not boarding “that plane” and had nothing to do with “missing movement” as “that plane” was not deploying him with his unit to Afghanistan. Missing Movement was thoroughly explained as deployment on transport to the Theatre of war. “By Design” was defined as a plot, plan or scheme to evade deployment. The man did not scheme anything as he reported to his office at 6:30 a.m. “that morning” and was not relieved of his duties at anytime. He reported for work every single day up until the Court Martial. The video played during the punishment phase proved the man did not intend to deceive and clearly proved that the intent not to report was due to his sacred Oath to protect the Constitution and the heavy heart he had pounding in his chest due to the doubt and uncertainty.

    I would think the Elite Members would have questioned the definition of the term “presumed” as in “presumed lawful orders”, quite frankly, since that was one of the first phrases the Judge used in her opening statement to proceed with the Court Martial on December 14th, 2010 and it still has yet to be defined.

    Had the heaviest Charge #1 Missing Movement by design, had any weight at all, the scenario would not have been missing a plane when he was free to report via pogo stick if he wanted to. It would have been built around the fact that he did not “move” with his Unit on the day of deployment via the designated craft to transport. And by design would have had to shown the deceitful plan he concocted in not doing so.

    Though we learned we need to consult our dictionaries in order to define the word ‘require’ the definition of the charges are on record as they were entered into the record by the court reporter in open session.

    Psuedo intellect was the main course.

    Dishonesty is hiding your ALL of your records so to fracture the Nation.

    The honorable Members swore under Oath during voir dire that they did not hear nor were they aware of the LTC Terry Lakin case. They did, however, admit that they heard of the doctor who failed to follow orders due to his uncertainty as to the eligibility of the current Commander In Chief.

    They chose to dismiss the Accused from the Army even though they were shown irrefutable proof that he is an American Patriot with a fervent love for the Army and the security of all its Members.

    They also learned the man is not a racist, much to their chagrin.

  23. 48 drkate December 22, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    For the record, I stood when Lakin was pronounced guilty, not when he entered his plea…and I was asked 3 times by Will Story of the NYT why I did it. My answer was:

    “I stood because when the Judge pronounced Terry Lakin guilty, she pronounced me and millions of other Americans guilty too. This is a national security issue”

    Not as reported, ‘who stood when Lakin plead’, ‘i feel very close to him’

    Thus Dowd can’t even report accurately what people say.

    • 49 Papoose December 22, 2010 at 8:17 pm

      Yes, that is my recollection, drKate.

      Terry pleaded Guilty to Charge 2 on Day One, “refusing to obey orders” with 4 specifications that were eventually collapsed due to the multiplicity nature. He was found guilty on 3 of the 4 on that day, 12/14/10, as one specification was dismissed. Then at sentencing (Day 3 closing arguments) it was agreed to collapse another one of the specifications as they were congruous.

      After the Judge ascertained that he was willing to plead guilty without the benefit of a jury, she asked him to stand for the pronouncement, which you both did. And then we witnessed voir dire, whereby the Government’s Members were advised that the Accused was found guilty of charge 2 and they were now assigned to hear Charge 1 and deliberate the innocence / guilt as well as sentencing for charge 2. (and 1 of course, if they found him guilty).

      There was no need to stand for Pleading as Puckett took care of that the minute he opened his mouth.

      On another account of the lies Ms. Dowd spouted in the NY Times, is that there were ” looney birthers” present. The only people I met in that court room standing to support the Accused were Constitutionalists made up of people interested in the bona fides of the CIC which were his scholastic records. We already know that an internet image of a few COLBs would not be admissible in a court of law as to their authenticity. Hard copies with data would be acceptable. He probably doesn’t have one anyway, so we concede.

      People there were interested in his actual scholastic records as well since they are buried and will never see the light of day. Probably because of the name and nationality he used for enrollment. Insofar as the long form BC, the interest is what was your name and what doctor brought you into this world. Its probably on microfiche somewhere in Fort Knox where they used to keep the Nation’s treasure.

      Homeland, the word used to mean where you were born. Now it means where your supposed father was born… we get it.

      • 50 Papoose December 22, 2010 at 9:43 pm

        I wish with all of my heart, that Col. Sullivan of CAAflog would hear our case with the same sanctity, decorum and rules as that of a Court of Law.

        I would trust him to be a fair and impartial judge. My instincts spring from a brief and remote acquaintance. I believe he would find us compelling and sincere in our beliefs. ~~ Mine are fundamental as I was taught consistently as a child that in order to qualify as POTUS/ CIC you had to meet specific requirements and that was due to assurance that this person * had no foreign allegiance.

        Its Primal: 2 American parents, on American soil

        I think he would find us all to be intelligent and hard working individuals regardless if we were harpists, hydrolgists, housewives or hairdressers. I think he would see our good hearts and concern for

        ~~ Also, inanely, we expected that the POTUS would be as clean as a whistle – no money ties/ gaming/ no screwing around on your wife. *

        and No Fraud. No Voter Registration Movement. No Foreign Passports. No Distractions.

        I was growing up at a time that you had to immediately stop what you were doing and duck under your desk after pulling the shades and turning off every light. It would be mid-day and the sirens would call you to the drill for survival. Yea, that was back when Russians were coming. Glad we don’t have to worry about them anymore. They came.
        and we expected
        ~~ Someone who could speak off the cuff as his thoughts rolled in when was communicating. (and, not so much. all the time. blah, blah, blah.)

        I imagine that I wouldn’t want to argue or oppose Dwight in a Constitution case, that would be futile. Fugly, no doubt. Counsel would be in gridlock. (forever, due their respective natures, natrually.)

        I do imagine, though, he would make a good listener and would be able to hold court in a liberal and just way and let everything be heard as it pertains to the matter of eligibility to be POTUS/ CIC. Judge’s should have no skin in the game, and I think Col Sullivan could put all his aside sans snark and sarcasm. Its just a feeling.

        * oh that,
        back in the day * = white guy
        Full blooded American with Pedigree

  24. 51 madeleine7 December 22, 2010 at 9:46 pm

    Dr Kate – Heartfelt thanks for your continuing battle against evil and lies. Good will triumph in the end. God bless you and protect you always. Starla , many thanks. Don´t forget Our Lady of Peace of Medjugorje And Saint Faustina of Poland with the message of Christ of Divine Mercy. Read what she says about her visit to Hell. Obama and company will not escape that. We are on the eve of a tremendous battle between Good and Evil. I choose Good , even though “friends” shun me and mock me.

    • 52 attilasdaughter December 22, 2010 at 9:53 pm

      I used to get the monthly messages from Our Lady of Medjugorje.

    • 53 Papoose December 22, 2010 at 10:27 pm

      I choose Good, even though “friends” shun me and mock me.

      Click to access Luke-22-63-23-25.pdf

      Same Bat Time. Same Bat Channel.


      Christmas is coming. We celebrate the birth of Jesus and the remarkable life he lived. May He and His humane message on the Mount be told for another thousand years. Historical Jesus lived in a day not unlike our own. Globalization one tiny town at a time. He was concerned. He was involved. It was a problem. He got called on it by charging blasphemy by his own People. He was tortured. He died.

      Ironic that, ain’t it? We are forced to tolerate any deity deemed to be in a protected class, but yet, whilst we fight for our unalienble rights as We The People, we must vigilantly fight for our Jesus and his message of peace and goodwill.

      What is so worthy in mocking this?

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

      Who would want to mock this into transforming it?

      Greedy Domestic Enemies, of course.

      Christmas is coming. They cannot obliterate it. No matter how they try. “They” are offending me and trampling on my civil rights with every intolerant word and deed.

      Rise up Patriots. They’re on the Move.
      Your Country. Your God. Your Income. Your car. Your Healthcare/student loans/civil army. Your banks. your Food. Your Environment. Your Conversations. Your Visitations. Your Friends. Your Family. Your Re-education. They want it all. Now.

  25. 54 madeleine7 December 22, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    The monthly messages of Our Lady of Peace of Medjurgorje are posted every 25th of each month. Go to official web-site , is one. Our Lady´s messages are posted there. We all must strive to be honest and strong and pray for Good to triumph and for protection and divine help for USA in these perilous times. Obama is a traitor. Why are people so blind?? I pray for “all” to come to the Light – including Obama and henchmen.

  26. 55 tfb December 22, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    The Food Safety Enhancement Act will destroy the food supplement industry…I just learned about it more in depth today.
    One word wrong on a label is $7.5 million fine, even for a 1 man operation, up to 10 years in prison, the FDA can do drop-in unannounced inspections at any time, if you want to sell anything, even a vitamin, you have to register under the bioterrorism act!
    The language is gray, vague, open to bribery-interpretation, the threats surreal.

    They do not want people to have access to low cost supplements and herbal remedies and vitamins, this will cause many to drop out or never to go into business. This is horrible!

    • 56 Papoose December 23, 2010 at 12:08 am

      M O N S A N T O

      what a scary word.

    • 57 Szentelira December 24, 2010 at 12:38 pm

      It may be misleading to speak of “eligibility-deniers” and the hyphen changes little to that, for WE are the eligibility deniers. A better phrase would be “eligibility issue deniers” or “deniers of the eligibility issue”.

      Or is that ambiguity deliberate, and that title a subtle way to reach the eligibility issue deniers who have googled those words in order to give them an opportunity to learn our arguments?

    • 58 True Patriot December 25, 2010 at 9:43 am

      No doubt this is more tyranny put upon our nation. It is unconstitutional and I say we call all our Congressman and demand this Communist Bill be repealed immediately.

      I personally have been fighting the thugs in the FDA and EPA for years. We defeated them in 1994 but every year these Communists try and sneak this back in.

      It is time for “We The People” to take this country back. We have to stay on these issues.

      This “Fake” Food Safety Bill was initiated by none other than the Rino Traitor John McCain in which he tried to slide it through during the Healthcare disaster thinking no one would notice.

      We had millions sign email petitions and have stayed on it over and over again.

      We keep killing it, and they keep having another Senator add an admendment to it and bring it back through.

      This time they did it at one in the morning while we were sleeping. Leahy was also involved in it and Sen. Tom Harkin.

      I say slam the halls of Congress and perch on them like buzzards because as soon as your back is turned they try again.

      Since this was done in the dead of night, and since we have so aggressively fought these Communist thugs, I think we can get this repealed with the new Congress, but we will have to sit on top of them.

      There are a few orgs. fighting them. Alliance Health is one and I have others but I will have to get you the sites.

      So exhausted. It is a 24/7 job fighting Communists.

  27. 59 Chester December 23, 2010 at 2:06 am

    RE: Intellectual dishonesty

    The expression “Intellectual dishonesty”, in this context, fits for academics, for journalists and generally for those who did not take oaths to protect and uphold the Constitution. However, Judges (including SCOTUS), the Military, Members of Congress and DOJ attorneys are practicing what Alan Keyes calls “dereliction of duty”.

  28. 60 Jan December 23, 2010 at 2:16 am

    Dr. Kate, words cannot express my gratitude for you attending the trial. My heart aches for Dr. Lakin and it aches for you and all the true Patriots that attended his trial.

    I come from a very long line of military and this trial made me want to go to my grandson and tell him to back out of the Marines before he becomes Commissioned.

    To be on trial and not be allowed to produce any evidence is disgusting. But I’m afraid that with the new executive orders by the obat, many more people are going to be thrown in prison and not even be allowed an attorney or a trial. They can be held indefinitely. The rest of the EO states that anyone can be murdered if the Homeland Security deems them to be a terrorist. Since we are all on the Terrorist list, my guess is, we’ll be the first to go or to be thrown in jail with the keys thrown away.

    If Congress does not wake up in the next six months, our blessed America will be a communist nation, third world type.

    Who cares if obat would be embarrassed? I want my country back.

  29. 61 Chester December 23, 2010 at 2:25 am


    RE: “That’s what I am hoping…but defense council didn’t even raise it!!”

    1. Is there any talk about an appeal? Is Puckett going to do it?

    2. Pls excuse me if I missed the following but I do not know the details as well as you do: Jensen at or near the preliminary hearing said something to the affect that he was going to ask for dismissal of the case, but there was no time. Did Jensen or Puckett ever ask the judge for dismissal?

  30. 62 Quantum Leap December 23, 2010 at 2:43 am

    OT/Boost your security with Trusteer Rapport•Defends against phishing and malware activity
    •Helps safeguard your identity
    •Shows when you’re on an unprotected website
    Download Trusteer Rapport1 for free continuous protection Works with all major web browsers
    Secures communication between keyboard & sensitive websites
    Protects online username, password & other sensitive sign on information
    Prevents malware from tampering with your online transactions
    Works with your current antivirus software by providing another level of online security
    Protects your information on up to 100 participating retail, social networking & email browser websites
    Simple protection indicator: green = protected; gray = unprotected
    Periodic reports sent to show malware & phishing attempts
    Does not require any configuration or maintenance—just install and you’re protected.
    Find out more here:;leftCol

    Do your research please to see if it’s compatable with your system.
    There is a lot of keystroke logging/ phishing going on.

    I can’t visit Orly’s site because she has a keystroke trojan.

    Research but download something reputable if you don’t want to choose this. These days double protection is best. Might want to also research what’s good for wordpress protection too.

    Your identity is at risk. Time to lock her up tight. Also good to get a malware cleaner. Net neutrality is not neutral at all.

    Safe surfing to all.

    Additionally, it slows your computer but you may not know if you have a virus or malware so please check. Chances are that you do.

    “They” are watching @@ —>and crooks also want your banking info.

    Test your DNS name servers for spoofability
    What does DNS cache poisoning mean to us? A lot. Using cache poisoning, bad guys can redirect web browsers to malicious web sites. After that, any number of bad things can happen.;topRated

    That’s my message….12:30 am Thursday

    • 63 heather December 24, 2010 at 8:29 am

      QL—went to those links and got a flashing warning from Norton–trojans — be careful–I have a feeling the govt is loading sites with virus’s in hopes they shut us down and then blame someone else—hence their shut down of the net!

  31. 64 Quantum Leap December 23, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Look what happened at Jim’s place this summer to get an idea of what may have occured here.

    This blog is not encrypted. May need to encrypt

  32. 65 Chester December 23, 2010 at 3:16 am

    @ usapatriots-shout

    RE: “ Even Rush Limbaugh treads lightly on the subject. I listen almost daily to Rush’s rants and rave for THREE HOURS. The most time he gives to any suggestion about Obama’s failed to produce credentials is about two minutes. Imagine the good he could do if he devoted an entire program on the subject complete with facts and statements from the attorneys who have bravely confronted the issue in the courts.,,”

    Rush, Mark Levine or Hannity are not allowed to treat eligibility seriously. Rush cracked a joke or two – that was OK, but real treatment of the subject is censured. They talk endlessly about matters that are interesting sometimes but trivial in comparison to the implications of eligibility.

    Remember Watergate? Two journalists caused Nixon’s resignation. These two were hailed as heroes. Rush or any of the mentioned radio hosts, with their 10s of millions of listeners, could easily do the same, just practicing honest investigating journalism. And they would love to do it, but they are not allowed.

    We are living in different times.

  33. 66 Kathy M December 23, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Good article and right on so many different levels. May I also add that this dishonesty is also political dishonesty. It has been said that a habitual liar repeats the lie so often, that they start to believe the lie themselves. The people and groups that are being publicly, politically dishonest in this issue are ENABLERS, COHARTS, PARTNERS to the crimes against this country being committed by this political machinery dishonesty. They are PRETENDERS of the law of Constitution only, not acting partners of it.

    Holding the office of the President of the United States is a PRIVILEGE and a RESPONSIBILITY to the Constitution. It is NOT A RIGHT and there are legal qualifications for a person to hold that specific office. Having those Presidential Constitutional Qualifications met is a RIGHT OF “WE THE PEOPLE”. Anything less is unacceptable.

    The general dishonesty currently shown by this political machinery constitutes COVER-UP and FRAUD. The most dangerous part of this DISHONESTY is that this is exactly how DICTATORS are allowed into power and we currently have the beginnings of one.

    This goes far beyond someone’s “embarrassment” or scorn. This is about a Nation and it’s Sovereignty. Do our leaders follow the Constitution or not? Because if any of the “leaders” are following the Constitution, this would be a good time to start acting like it, both publicly and privately.

  34. 68 Michelle December 23, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Dear dr.kate
    ” It was disheartening to observe the collaboration among the prosecution, defense,” shouldn’t the defense have been representing the client Lt. Col. Terry Lakin? not collaborating with the prosecution-in which case was Col. Lakin denied defense, was he advised of this? or was you are on your own a last minute surprise to him also? Did the defense charge Col. Lakin a fee for this defense? how does Col. Lakin know his lawyer was not double dipping? ie. accepting a fee from the prosecution? How does Col. Lakin know that possibly his defense was not actively working against him from the very beginning? Our Constitutional Republic is worth defending, I really wonder about people who call themselves Americans and find this issue some kind of joke, in their minds the entire Constitution is a joke? All parts make a whole, one part cannot be denigrated without denigration of the whole.

    • 69 Paula December 23, 2010 at 2:58 pm

      Good points, Michelle!

    • 70 drkate December 23, 2010 at 3:05 pm

      This is the stunner for me…to see it happen, and to not know if Lakin knew. And to question the defense’s true motives, as I know that Puckett doesn’t see the need for ‘natural born citizenship’…maybe saw his job as limiting jail time and not helping Lakin with the principle.

      I do know that the defense’s execution of Lakin on the stand was a complete surprise to Lakin, or should I say, Puckett did not inform his client he was going to do this. yes, huge ethics problems.

      I’ll tell you though, TPTB lockdown on this question of eligibility is absolutely scary…meaning they are serious about shutting down all discussion and will apparently not let anything get in the way.

      • 71 tfb December 24, 2010 at 8:33 am

        I suspected his brother was not on his side a long while back, I even asked if he wasn’t setting him up for a fall.

  35. 72 usapatriots-shout December 23, 2010 at 10:07 am

    I forgot to say that the Muslim practice of TAQIYA is synonomous with “INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.” Barry Sotoero is an expert in the practice of TAQIYA. All the CAIR laywers, Muslim “IMAMS” and infidel Muslim supporter are masters at intellectual dishonesty. The case in point is the ground zero jihad/terrorists headquarters they are planning to build. They call is a mosque and “cultural center.” Imam Rauf tries to claim that the Constitution of the United States and Muslim Sharia law are the same. The convolution of truth and facts never ends.

  36. 74 tfb December 23, 2010 at 11:51 am

    The definition for NBC is right in front of your eyes, Bunratty.

    “To be a candidate for President of the United States, a person must be a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.”

    “Or” means different in both logic and legalese.
    Therefore a “Citizen” is not a “natural born Citizen”
    A “Citizen” is anyone who is naturalized by statute, doctrine, or treaty. Today, a “Citizen” is defined as either naturalized by oath or at birth.

    Back in 1787 the only “Citizens” were naturalized at birth, since laws for oath-naturalized were not implemented until 1790.

    Therefore all birthright Citizens were eligible to be POTUS if they were alive at the time of ratification, but only natural born Citizens after.

    Since all birthright Citizens included those with a single Citizen parent, those who were natural born Citizens being by necessity different and given the finite permutations of parentage/citizenship, HAD TO have had 2 Citizen parents.

    • 75 gorefan December 24, 2010 at 1:46 pm

      “Back in 1787 the only “Citizens” were naturalized at birth, since laws for oath-naturalized were not implemented until 1790.”

      In fact, many of the state constitutions had clauses to naturalize foreigners. For example, the Pennsylvannia State Constitution of September, 1776 (which Ben Franklin helped write)had the following article:

      “SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.”

      Other states had the similar clauses. And we know from the Minor decision that the citizens of the states became the citizens of the United States.

      “Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt.” Minor v. Happersett.

  37. 76 tfb December 23, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Bunratty is typical of the convolution approach in the realm of intellectual dishonesty. They stress that NBC is nowhere defined in the Constitution, but indeed it is defined right there in article II Section 1 clause 5 in the grandfather clause.

    All grandfather clause presidents were first generation (meaning they had at least one link by blood or soil to a foreign nation) and all post grandfather clause presidents were second generation (they had no first generation ties to a foreign nation at birth…except Obama).

    I think the quickest way to weed out this type of liar is to ask them not how they define NBC but how they define CITIZEN.

    What the weasels typically do is then try to say NBC is anyone who is a “born citizen”, and a Citizen is oath-naturalized. This is easily disproved by the fact that there were no oath-naturalized citizens until after 1790, and so the only Citizens allowed to be grandfather clause presidents were all born-citizens. Given the language makes clear that naturalized at birth or “born-Citizens” are not natural born Citizens, that NBCs can ONLY mean 2nd generation Citizens, born of US Citizen parentS on US soil.

  38. 77 C. Bunratty December 23, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Then why does Skousen equate “natural-born citizen” with “native-born citizen?” Who doesn’t he make a distinction between the two, if there is a distinction?

    And where are the history/civics textbooks which state that there is a two-citizen parent requirement?

    I’ll be waiting.

    • 78 tfb December 23, 2010 at 12:55 pm

      Skousen appears to take native born to mean “one of us”, meaning born of us, amongst us, on our soil. But the Constitution is clear, and there are no other options as to what NBC can possibly mean.

      It’s NOT an oath-naturalized citizen.
      It’s NOT a naturalized-at-birth citizen.
      It can only be a natural born Citizen, meaning there are NO laws tied to its “being”.

      This is why the only permutation omitted from our laws describing all naturalized citizens (oath or at birth) is that of 2 US citizen parents born on US soil.

    • 79 attilasdaughter December 23, 2010 at 1:48 pm

      Dr Kate: “This guy is in spam.”

      Little obsessed here, or why do You come back with a different name?
      Ah, I see, You found something. Some old article of a guy named Skousen who doesn’t know the difference between native born and natural born.
      And You want to show it to us like a proud little puppy who found a bone.

      Native born also includes 14th amendment citizen. When they have non-citizen parents they have divided allegiance.
      Sometimes their allegiance is undivided towards the birth country of their parents. You can see that displayed by mexican flag waving children of immigrants.
      In Your definition they are eligible to be president, because natural and native are the same.
      Then of course the question comes up, if Obama is a native born.
      He hasn’t provided a long form birth certificate so far.
      And he was a dual citizen at birth.
      Not even mentioning his adoption by an Indonesian.
      It’s a bit much, don’t You think?

  39. 80 attilasdaughter December 23, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    qwertyman = C. Bunratty

    • 81 drkate December 23, 2010 at 2:06 pm

      Thank you, now in spam

    • 82 True Patriot December 24, 2010 at 6:55 pm

      Good work Attila Daughter. These liberal brain dead zombies are so dishonest they will post under several different names.

      Doesn’t matter. They are still frauds, just like our illegal communist muslim usurping fraud and jihadist.

      They will not awake from their brain dead state. Being a liberal
      is a mental disease.

    • 83 True Patriot December 24, 2010 at 6:56 pm

      Good work Attila Daughter. These liberal brain dead zombies are so dishonest they will post under several different names.

      Doesn’t matter. They are still frauds, just like their illegal communist muslim usurping fraud and jihadist.

      They will not awake from their brain dead state. Being a liberal
      is a mental disease.

  40. 84 Quantum Leap December 23, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    He’s a dual citizen thus unqualified.
    Born in mombassa Kenya as his wife sasquatch indicates.
    Case closed.

  41. 85 Starla December 23, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Re: madeleine7
    December 22, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    The monthly messages of Our Lady of Peace of Medjurgorje are posted every 25th of each month. Go to official web-site , is one. Our Lady´s messages are posted there. We all must strive to be honest and strong and pray for Good to triumph and for protection and divine help for USA in these perilous times. Obama is a traitor. Why are people so blind?? I pray for “all” to come to the Light – including Obama and henchmen.

    # # # #

    Amen! This is TRUE!!

  42. 86 drkate December 23, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Manning’s take, a good video:

  43. 88 slcraig December 23, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Although I absolutely agree that the 0’bots, press, media and the Congress are egregiously exerting intellectual dishonesty, BUT, I am forced to offer some exceptions on behalf of the Courts, both the Federal and Military Courts.

    There exists a dilemma and a dichotomy regarding the Constitutional imperative of POTUS / V-POTUS qualifications.

    There is NO ‘legally acknowledged’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    Although many cases attacking the eligibility of the putative POTUS have included and advanced posited definition within the context of their ‘Political Question’ cases.

    A ‘Political Question’ case invokes the ‘Separation of Powers’ doctrine that places a very high Bar between the Branches that, to date, has proved to be a hurdle too high for the Courts to attempt.

    But, in order to support, protect and defend the Constitution those that have advanced their cases have utilized MOST every ‘legal’ means available and the fact that they have, to date, failed is not so much a deficiency of the Courts and or the cases in the following of the Law, but rather, in my ‘legal theory, it is the ‘context’ upon which the case is presented.

    In my ‘legal theory’ of the subject, the question of the definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen is NOT a ‘Political Question’, but rather, it is a ‘Citizenship Question’ in the 1st instance.

    When the Courts are presented a Bona Fide case asking the question of the definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, INSOFAR as citizenship is concerned, then they MUST respond, or in the alternative, deny that an American natural born Citizen exists.

    Please understand that this has been my personal understanding of the situation and the basis upon which I have been proceeding.

    • 89 drkate December 23, 2010 at 2:58 pm

      While I initially objected to the idea that this was a political question, I see that you are positing a political context for the case file. Being, primarily, the election process…

      So what you are saying is present a case asking for the definition of nbc in the context of citizenship…but, how do you cross the ‘standing’ hurdle, or ‘injury in fact’?

      I appreciate you positing ideas and discussion here… 🙂

      • 90 slcraig December 23, 2010 at 3:41 pm

        Sorry, please see below also, but no, my case has NOTHING to do with the political process, election law, etc, purely on the matter of the ‘citizenship’ condition and circumstances of being a NBC.

      • 91 slcraig December 23, 2010 at 3:53 pm

        As to how I ‘obtained ‘standing’;


        1. Plaintiff has sought to confirm the assertion of citizenship conformity to the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen by applying to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, USCIS, with application on the Form N-600, Certification of Citizenship with the proviso of stipulating that the attached documents to the application confirm the Applicants assertion of being a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States, insofar as citizenship is concerned.

        I will [snip] here and explain that I had been denied and immediatly appealed through an Administrative Appeals process that had stalled, effectivly ‘exhausting’ all ‘administrative remedies’ which provided access, ‘standing’ to the Fed Court for ‘review’.

        • 92 drkate December 23, 2010 at 3:58 pm

          Whoa, you are really on to something here.

          • 93 slcraig December 23, 2010 at 4:09 pm

            The ‘defendants’ will be ‘served’ by Christmas, or so I was told when the Marshal took my paperwork for the service of ‘Summons’.

            This will be my 2nd trip through the Courts. The 1st ending as have all the others due to lack of Standing.

            But I did get the Courts on record on a number of key points in the 1st case and have experience writing a Petition to the SCOTUS so I am much better prepared this time, with the added ‘element’ of Standing.

    • 94 Merlin's Apprentice December 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm

      Since Congress has for whatever reason chosen not to define a natural born citizen and thereby not offer a political solution, what kind of legal challenge would it take to lead the judicial system to set the definition? Forgetting Obama for the moment, who in America but somebody actively aspiring to become President or Vice President has the potential to be harmed but not knowing whether or not they are a native born or a natural born citizen?

      • 95 drkate December 23, 2010 at 3:20 pm

        As you know congress cannot define nbc, only a court can.

        The states. Citizenship, immigration issues, invasion. The states will be harmed. That means us, the citizens of the states.

        • 96 slcraig December 23, 2010 at 3:36 pm


          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.

          • 97 drkate December 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm

            I think this may suggest that the states could call for this definition…in a ‘friendly’ way…based just on citizenship and in the context of increasing immigration…?

            • 98 slcraig December 23, 2010 at 4:03 pm

              I have been in touch with a number of State Legislators delivering that very message, but it takes a lot of courage for a ‘Politician’ to stick their neck out like that.

              But yes, each State, laking a Federal definition HAS the RIGHT to define NBC anyway they want for the Balloting process.

              Of course that would trigger challenges, which is all ‘we’ve’ been asking all along.

    • 99 Chester December 23, 2010 at 5:31 pm


      RE: “When the Courts are presented a Bona Fide case asking the question of the definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, INSOFAR as citizenship is concerned, then they MUST respond, or in the alternative, deny that an American natural born Citizen exists. “

      Please correct me if I am wrong – but I remember that sometimes in 2009, after the Donafrio case hearing was denied by SCOTUS, there was a case which asked for the definition of nbc without any reference to the current situation. SCOTUS, as usual, denied hearing it. So there is no “MUST respond. “

      I agree with you that defining nbc is the responsibility of SCOTUS, and not Congress’ or any other entity as some of the readers suggest. Nevertheless, SCOTUS has unlimited power in choosing their work-tasks. They do not even have to provide reasons. It is possible that the only exception is if Congress demands that SCOTUS rules.

      For the whole Judiciary Branch, there are three wonderful tools in the “inconvenient case tool-box”: Standing, the Political Question and the wrong jurisdiction. You may disagree with me, but I see most of these as very flexible doctrines or rules, that can be applied pro or con.

      The result is that if the Judiciary Branch decides not hearing a case on merit, the Constitution can become unenforceable. This is precisely where we are now – and this is why Alan Keyes is right when he calls it “dereliction of duty”.

      • 100 slcraig December 23, 2010 at 5:52 pm

        That was me and although the record shows denied that is only because I did not withdraw it when the 10th Circuit denied my appeal ‘in part, and remand in part’.

        You see, I was at SCOTUS under Rule 11, Petition before appeal judgment and the USCA 10th Circuit rushed their decision before the SCOTUS Conference date, which made the SCOTUS Petition MOOT.

        But anyway, I did not have STANDING because I did not have ALL of the ‘elements’ of a Bona Fide case even though I was able to test the judicial system all the way to the SCOTUS Docket.

        In this instance, I am aggrieved and the ONLY place remaining for me to obtain relief’ is the Court, which can provide me with a Declaratory Judgment.


        4. Declaratory Judgement 28 U.S.C. § 2201, §§ Rule 57 stating the ‘legal’ Constitutional definition of the idiom of natural born Citizen found in Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution, insofar as ‘citizenship’ is concerned, for Plaintiff’s purposes, being sufficient; leaving consideration of any ‘transient political aspects’ to the concerns of the Court.

        • 101 Chester December 24, 2010 at 12:26 am


          Thank you for your answer. I understand how you are handling the Political Question problem, and I think you are right. However, as I am not a lawyer, I don’t quite understand your answer to Dr. Kate with regard to Standing. Somehow you are saying that every citizen should have Standing if the request is formulated your way.

          I like your approach from another point of view. It is neutral – you are not attacking Mr. Transparency. Therefore, some members of the new House perhaps would be more likely supporting your approach than an eligibility based approach.

          By the way, could Congress force SCOTUS to define nbc? Congress do not need Standing and SCOTUS could not say that it is not SCOTUS’ function to interpret the law. Maybe that is way, to go parallel with your action. Don’t tell me that SCOTUS is not politically influenced because I don’t trust them anymore than Alan Keyes does.

          • 102 tfb December 24, 2010 at 12:49 am

            Let’s entertain this ridiculous notion of Congress defining NBC as something other than jus soli jus sanguinis both parents…

            If they say it’s a one citizen parent citizen at birth, then they can’t explain why those were ineligible after the ratification.
            They can’t explain the holding in Minor which means no 14ther can be NBC.
            They can’t explain SR511 which Obama agrees to that says 2 US Citizen parents are required for NBC.
            They can’t explain US Code 1401 — see if a one parent Citizen child is allowed and specified then they’re sayinga 2 US citizen parents/jus soli situation is NOT ELIGIBLE since it’s not listed in USC1401.
            They can’t explain US v WKA which holds that a native born child of an ALIEN (like Obama’s father) is never a natural born Citizen.

            and most of all they can’t define “CITIZEN” because oath naturalized citizens did not exist until after 1790.

            There is no way that NBC can mean a one US citizen parent.

          • 104 True Patriot December 24, 2010 at 7:13 pm

            @ slcraig & Chester Both of your points are well made and raise additional questions on the NBC issue, however the format has been in place for such a long time, that the method used defines the burden of proof is always on the elected President to prove he is an NBC to be an eligible sitting President. All other Presidents before this illegal communist muslim infitrating fraud have produced this same evidence every time, therefore the “willingness & cooperation” of all other sitting Presidents to produce their documents has laid the legal ground work for answering this question.

            Obama has spent millions to seal his records which will prove him hands down to be ineligible to be President because he is an illegal alien with several Social Security numbers, & he has under oath lied about going to Columbia University and other shady problems with this complete fraud and Communist infiltrator who has been groomed for years to infiltrate and destroy the United States.

            Obama’s direct connections to the Communists both in our country, and abroad are dangerous and we are all most daily seeing their plan unfold, while all of our corrupt media sits by and allows this fraud a pass, yet silences our work to help our brave, courageous Lt. Col. Lakin.

            Obama should be at Leavenworth, and Lt. Col. Lakin should be in the White House.

            I am quite sure everyone on this site agrees with me.

  44. 106 slcraig December 23, 2010 at 2:49 pm


    I welcome any questions as a means to hone my ability to express my ‘case’.

  45. 108 tfb December 23, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    And when all is said and done, he failed the 20th amendment, he is NOT a president, just a poser.

    • 109 drkate December 23, 2010 at 3:16 pm

      And, I say again, bring back the 25th amendment based on that failure!!!!!!!!!!

      • 110 tfb December 23, 2010 at 8:50 pm

        isn’t 25th for his narcissistic sociopathic mental condition?
        20th is because Congress never vetted him as REQUIRED, he just “is not” any legal president because of that

        I wonder how they’d bluster through that one, it doesn’t take any interpretation of the constitution to know this…

        • 111 drkate December 23, 2010 at 9:37 pm

          “disability” under the 25th could also be his lack of eligibility…i think mental status would be hard, tho they thought about it with reagan

    • 113 True Patriot December 24, 2010 at 7:17 pm


      Let’s go a step further and call Obama what he is, an illegal communist muslim usurping fraud and jihadist.

      He is a puppet for the Communist Marxist thugs around the world.

      This has all been planned for years. It was planned so skillfully, the Communists beat out old Hitler Hillary, aka
      the Clinton Machine.

      That is how deep this infiltration runs. We are staring Communism/Marxism right in the face!

  46. 115 drkate December 23, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    On the Lakin trial, what could have happened

    The UCMJ could have prevented this entire fiasco and (for them) very ugly black eye had it taken the steps of saying … “Whoa; we hereby ask the United States Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of the Presidential eligibility matter as a matter of first instance and hand down its ruling for us to use.” Any UCMJ proceeding if there were one could then have proceeded on solid legal, Constitutional grounds.

    • 116 slcraig December 23, 2010 at 6:06 pm

      The SCOTUS can not USURP the Political prerogatives of the CONGRESS.

      Eligibility IS a POLITICAL QUESTION.

      SCOUTUS could not, would not and SHOULD NOT involve its-self with the POLITICAL DEBATE over ‘eligibility’….because there is NO definition of an Article II natural born Citizen….because no one has EVER asked them in the ‘context’ of a Bona Fide Petition before them.

      SCOTUS does NOT have the Mandate to give ‘Advisory Opinions’, notwithstanding the excellent argument by M. Puzzo in the Kerchner Petition asking for ‘Supervisory Powers’ in directing the lower court on the matter.

      The fact is this ‘no definition’ thing is a ‘legal loop-hole’ that the ‘0’ has used ‘brilliantly’ and being a man of repugnant character crawled right through it.

      My hope and aspiration is to plug that hole trapping him in the hole he chose for his self.

    • 123 heather December 23, 2010 at 9:09 pm

      This entire scam reminds me when I had read a statement from Michelle saying, “there is nothing that can or will stop Barack from becoming president.” She then went on to cite the 14th amendment. They all must have down their homework for yrs on this one.

      They are all laughing in our faces and I personally do not like being laughed at by anyone.

      • 124 True Patriot December 24, 2010 at 7:24 pm


        They may be laughing now, but remember he who laughs last
        laughs hardest and the day of reckoning is coming for this illegal communist muslim usurping fraud and Jihadist in our White House.

        The harder they have covered up the background of not only Obama, but Moochele aka Mrs. Darth Vader; the more the lid is
        going to blow off this entire fiasco.

        And the traitors and betrayers of the American People will all be exposed including “Faux News”, the high ranking coward filth calling themselves Generals and Joint Chiefs, the corrupt judges like the Communist/Marxist Judge Lind, and all of the Supreme Court for not hearing the cases on O’s ineligible status which is “the” issue America faces.

        O will be unseated in disgrace and go down as the biggest fraud and scam in the history of the entire world.

        Remember that all most all of Europe hates Obama as he is a weak, arrogant, bowing to rogue evil dicators village idiot.

        We will succeed. God is good and is on our side, not the side of the demon possessed radical left Communists/Marxists.

  47. 125 Papoose December 23, 2010 at 5:45 pm


    Intellectual Dishonesty: Deliberate Dumbing Down of $ociety

    get smart

    A penny saved is a penny earned.

  48. 126 attilasdaughter December 23, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    You’ve got answers to Your questions before, even though You claim things without evidence and take things out of contexts etc. You don’t like the answers and ignore them.
    Actually her whole article is about Bots like You. Have You read it?

    • 127 drkate December 23, 2010 at 8:32 pm

      Note to readers: I removed this bot’s comment and put him in spam. He posted as ‘trevor’ from two different machines… Thanks for correcting him 😛

  49. 128 tfb December 23, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    OK US Code 1401 is 58 years old, and lists all naturalized by oath and at birth Citizens, but omits 2 US Citizens child born in-country.

    Nobody’s disputed that natural born Citizens are statute-less for the past 58 years, because it’s a great big DUH, dumbass.

  50. 129 tfb December 23, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    Naps Napolitano had an airline pilot harassed by HS and the confiscated his pilot’s pistol and his state-issued concealed carry permit…
    Because he video’d the grotesque loopholes in airport security, loopholes just begging for a muzzie to exploit — ground crews only need to swipe a card for total access…achmed and habib already knew that.

  51. 130 tfb December 23, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    slcraig, there are 5 possible permutations of blood (citizen parent) and soil (born in-country)

    no blood, no soil
    1 blood, no soil
    1 blood, yes soil
    2 bloods, no soil

    all of these are covered by US Code 1401, and by A2S1C5, and all are NOT natural born citizens

    the only possible remainder is
    2 bloods, yes soil

    so yes, it is defined by A2S1C5 and no, it’s not a political question

    what do you think? that if the political winds shift it can be 3 bloods born on moon?

    I mean really, how fucking stupid are these bots?

    • 131 slcraig December 23, 2010 at 9:43 pm

      Well. 1st, watch your language when you are responding to me.
      to me.

      And it IS a ‘fact’ that there is NO ‘legally acknowledged’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

      No Statutes promulgated from any Legislative Act, no Declaratory Statement or Judgment emanating from the Judiciary, no Executive Order signed, only the lonely words in the Article, Section and Clause.

      In that we are Governed under a system of the Rule of Law this situation presents a cunundrum of the 1st order.

      Your little chart above would be very difficult to support in a legal breif before a Judge and even harder to defend against an opposition brief, I know because I asserted the same in my 1st case that the definition could be ‘distilled’ by ‘finding’ what is not in the Title 8 ‘citizenship and collective naturalization’ statutes.

      You think you have the answers but then you deny the question.

      It is ONLY a political question when it is in the CONTEXT of eligibility and that is only a ‘transient aspect’ of the nature of an NBC, unless you are saying being elected to POTUS makes one an NBC. In that case there is only ONE NBC in America at any given time.

      Is that what you mean that it is ONLY a political question.

      I think not.

      In order to ‘guide’ the Court to to the proper and correct definition of NBC it must be confined as to where it can look.


      “…[I]t 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.”

      The was not a ‘jus soli’ automatic grant of citizenship present in ANY State on in ANY Federal Statute prior to the 14th Amendment, albeit ‘jus soli’ is a requisite circumstance in the nature of an NBC.

      I have studied EVERY State Constitution prior to the 14th along with EVERY Federal Act as regards citizenship and naturalization as well as marriage laws, because that is what it takes to prevail, under the RULE of LAW.

      • 132 tfb December 24, 2010 at 12:16 am

        NBC cannot be naturalized or citizen at birth, it can’t be naturalized by oath….

        so what else could it be?

        You’re evading the obvious.

        NO jus soli only is ever a citizen, which is proven out by CRA1866 which was reenacted in 1870 after the 14th in 1868 and also modern USC1401 which has provisions (b) and (f) which are superfluous and therefore would not be there if (a) said jus soli only sufficed…which it does not.

        You’re deliberately muddying the waters. NBC can only be option #5. Everything else it provably is NOT.

        • 133 slcraig December 24, 2010 at 7:43 am

          Well, I’m not sure you are following me.

          I am saying the same thing only I am putting it in a way that the Court will be allowed to cite their own supporting causes and to express in their own words.

          You are exactly correct on your read of USCodes @ 1401, but in all of this there is only one fact in certainty and that is that there is NO ‘legally acknowledged definition and it must be found 1st in the Laws as they existed at the writing of the Clause in that it is all but conceded no changes have been made to it.

          I must also point out that the ‘opposition’ will have an opportunity to express their views on the subject which, to date, has not been done in ANY of the cases. So before I lay all the cards on the table I want to see what they’ve been holding in their hand on the subject.

  52. 134 Rosemary Woodhouse December 23, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    Oh, it’s all an April Fools joke, America! Just kidding! Congressional Fools. Supreme Court Fools. Electorate Fools Annus horribilis x 3, but who’s counting?

    Merry Christmas!

  53. 136 D. Oltieri December 24, 2010 at 7:40 am

    December 23, 2010 at 9:09 pm
    This entire scam reminds me when I had read a statement from Michelle saying, “there is nothing that can or will stop Barack from becoming president.” She then went on to cite the 14th amendment. They all must have down their homework for yrs on this one


    I remember that too, but it appears to have been ‘scrubbed’ from the internet like so many other ‘damming’ remarks.

    Anyone know where and when she said it? (Not being lazy I have tried searching for it myself)

    And just ignore Obots laughter – we’ll have the ‘last laugh’

  54. 139 tfb December 24, 2010 at 7:45 am

    You know what I noticed about Napolitano’s response to exposing the wide open side door for terrorists at airports, is that she seems angry that the deliberate vulnerability was made public. She WANTS us to get hit by terrorists and yet pretend something is being done.

    This is consistent with the Food Safety Enhancement Act which puts huge multimillion dollar fines on the producers of products if they are adulterated, but NOT on anyone post-producer who can adulterate them (say at the muhammad achmed owned retail level).

    So in both cases, it punishes good Americans, tries to make Naps and Holder appear as if they’re doing something, and helps terrorists inflict harm.

  55. 140 Jessup December 24, 2010 at 8:20 am

    > also modern USC1401 which has provisions (b) and (f) which are superfluous and therefore would not be there if (a) said jus soli only sufficed

    That is not the case.

    (f) is not superfluous because (a) deals with children born in the US whereas (f) deals with children of unknown birthplace *found* in the US.

    (b) is not superfluous because it does not contain the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause that (a) contains; it also explains in the second half (starting with “Provided:”) why that distinction is made.

    Besides, (a) does indeed not say that ius soli suffices; “subject to the jurisdiction” (of the US) is also required, thus ruling out children of foreign diplomats (see Wong Kim Ark ruling).

    • 141 tfb December 24, 2010 at 8:41 am

      wrong, f and b are superfluous IF a meant that jus soli only sufficed
      there would be absolutely no need to mention f or b!!

      what “a” really means is that if a child is born a citizen of another country, like an anchor baby, they’re NOT US Citizens

      because if they were deemed US Citizens even though mexico claimed them as citizens, there’d be no need for b or f, they’d be superfluous.

      What this proves is that a) means a person born in the USA with zero citizenship attachments to a foreign country is a statutory naturalized-at-birth USC1401 “Citizen”.

    • 142 tfb December 24, 2010 at 8:44 am

      f is unknown parentage, under age 5, :found: in US, assumes some American parentage due to youth

      b is one citizen parent (native) born in US

      so there is no ‘jus soli only’ provision in a), otherwise there would be no need for b or f

  56. 143 Jessup December 24, 2010 at 9:57 am

    I don’t understand your argument.

    (f) is required even if (a) means ius soli. Because (f) deals with children of unknown birthplace *found* (not “born”) in the US. How does (a) handle these, ius soli or not, if it talks about “born in the US”, not “found in the US”?
    So (f) is not superfluous regardless of ius soli.

    (b) is not talking about citizen parents born in the US. Or are all Inuit parents automatically “citizen parents born in the US”? So nothing superfluous there either.

    > what “a” really means is that if a child is born a citizen of another country

    That is your opinion of “really”, however has no basis in reality. Or do you read “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” different from just about anybody else, i.e. its literal meaning?

    • 144 slcraig December 24, 2010 at 2:18 pm

      I understand the inclination to look at the current US Codes, but they are not relevant to the matter of a A2S1C5 natural born Citizen.

      The ONLY means of changing the definition from ‘whatever'(*) it was when it was written into the Clause would be by Constitutional Amendment and any argument to the contrary would/will be inadmissible under Marbury v Madison.

      The Congressional Mandate over ‘naturalization’ ENDS with ANYTHING beyond ‘citizen’ and the proof that the ‘born clause’ of the 14th Amendment is a ‘collective naturalization ACT’, in that it IS Codified into Statutes.

      I am optimistic that the SCOTUS will arrive at the ‘correct and proper’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen when the question is presented within a Bona Fide Case asking for the definition and requesting the answer as the remedy for the cause of the action.

      It can be no other under the Rule of Law “…[w]hile 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 and various dicta found in Federal Court Opinions/Judgements…”

      • 145 tfb December 24, 2010 at 3:25 pm

        but under m&m 1401 would’ve been challenge by now (in the past 58 years)

        they cannot get around the obvious conclusion because there’s only finite possibilities and all but one is acceptable

      • 146 tfb December 24, 2010 at 3:58 pm

        again, what definition of “citizen” other than naturalized (per 1401) is there?


        • 147 slcraig December 24, 2010 at 4:35 pm

          Well, when it comes to ‘citizen’ the combinations are remarkably diverse, i.e., what of those who conceive from the sperm of an anonymous ‘donor’ under clinical conditions…?…or eggs and sperm from anonymous donors implanted into a surrogate woman/mother intended for adoption by a sterile lesbian…?……without statute other than the born clause some confusions might arise….Point is, the ‘Collective naturalization Born Clause’ pretty well covers any and all mixtures of circumstances but DOES NOT infringe upon the ‘birth right’ prerogatives of natural citizenship when both parents ARE citizens, no matter where in the world the child is born, reserving the natural born to only those that are also born within the territorial jurisdiction of ‘jus soli’.

          The thing the ‘opposition’ fear the most is the introduction of a ‘legally acknowledged’ definition of NBC.

          Over the years a number of Amendments have cirrculated that would cover the children of citizen parents who were abroad as active duty military or otherwise engaged in Government service, such as McCains situation which was handled by a non-binding and legally devoid Senate Resolution.

          But in order to circulate such an Amendment would necessarily open the door to dicussing the Original definition in the whole, a circumstance that the opposition consistently vote down.

          I argue that the question of the nature of a natural born Citizen is in the 1st instance a ‘citizenship question’ and that the attached ‘Transient Political Aspects’ are secondary precisly because the ‘transient Political aspects’ were attached only by its inclusion in the Executive qualification Clause and only after the acknowledgement of the anticipated existence.

          But what happens once the question is answered insofar as citizenship is concerned the ‘transient Political question’ becomes a simple “matter of FACTual findings’.

          Under the correct and proper definition the ‘0’ has indicted his-self in his own written and spoken words and that is the sword of Damocles that hangs over the head of the putative POTUS, that the correct and proper definition might be ‘legally acknowledged under the Rule of Law.

          “Does not Dionysius seem to have made it sufficiently clear that there can be nothing happy for the person over whom some fear always looms?”

          • 148 tfb December 24, 2010 at 5:07 pm

            The gamete babes are treated as adoptees, so covered already and moot.

            What do you think of Abercrombie’s forthcoming new set of forgeries?

            The fact remains that there is an irrefutable difference between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. They are not the same thing, as exposed by the word OR in a2s1c5.

            NBC is set apart from citizen in all laws and in the constitution, so whatever citizen is not, is what nbc “is”.

  57. 149 Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter December 24, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Merry Christmas Dr. Kate and everybody!!! Here is a Christmas carol I wrote about Obama. I hope you enjoy it:

    What Child is This???
    by Squeeky Fromm

    What child is this, nobody knows
    Tho’ Long Forms we are demanding.
    It’s such a crime, each and every time,
    When Courts hold that we lack standing!

    Barack, Barack! I bet you will
    Try to dodge the Birther Bill.
    Twenty twelve – a new campaign.
    Oh Hail! The Texas Primary!

    Why does his Social Security
    Number come from Connecticut?
    While sweet Michelle, to hear her tell
    Obama was born in a Kenyan hut?

    Warrants bring and subpoenas, too!
    Ferret out everyone who knew!
    Haste, haste there’s lots to do,
    While we wait for the Texas Primary

    But still he sits in the Oval O.
    While Lakin’s going to Leavenworth.
    OH! What a mess, while most express
    Doubts about his place of birth?

    Help! Help! Raise a fuss!
    Obama flipped a bird at us!
    Hid! Hid! Documents he did!
    Oh pray for the Texas Primary!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  58. 150 tfb December 24, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    Abercrombie is preparing to release his newly forged documents for his little boy bama.

    usually la times censors, but they’re allowing all input right now

    abercrombie is a communist lifelong beard for obama, he’s a sick puppy

    but nothing he does changes the fact that obama fails article ii and 20th

    if he changes parentage, obama still fails 20th and is guilty of felony document forgery class b 10 years (at the very least)

  59. 152 Mick December 25, 2010 at 2:12 am

    If a “citizen at birth” is a natural born Citizen, then congress could amend the Constitution at will by making changes to USC 8 section 1401. Obama apologists get twisted in there own logic.

    • 153 tfb December 25, 2010 at 2:41 am

      if they did that, then they’d have not covered 2 us citizen parents born in-country, because that is missing from 1401.

      So then they’d be saying “citizen” meant oath naturalized and CABs would be NBCs, but this does not jibe with A2’s grandfather clause because oath naturalized did not exist until 1790 and all first 5 potus were CABs.

    • 154 tfb December 25, 2010 at 10:14 pm

      they can’t amend the constitution without 3/4 ratification by the states
      however they could change USC1401 and then everyone would be just a U.S. Citizen and nobody would be a natural born Citizen

      • 155 Chester December 26, 2010 at 11:55 pm

        RE: “however they could change USC1401 and then everyone would be just a U.S. Citizen and nobody would be a natural born Citizen”

        I don’t see how Congress can eliminate or override the nbc clause of the Constitution. In my opinion the only way is through constitutional amendment, which as you hinted would not be successful. It is not within Congress’s powers to change the constitution without constitutional amendment.

  60. 156 slcraig December 25, 2010 at 8:22 am

    I am curious if you agree or dispute the FACT that there is NO ‘legally acknowledged’ definition of the Constitutional idiom, and if you ‘acknowledge’ that the turn of words is imbued with more meaning than the juxtaposition of the individual words might have if not specifically included in the Clause.


    “[C]urrently, as of the date and time of this 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 words within the Constitution, not in any promulgated Legislation Codified to Statutes, not in any of the Amendments 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 dicta found in Federal Court Opinions/Judgements…”

    …and I am also curious how you think the opposition might argue that FACT and, if over ruled, what you think the ramifications of that FACTS dissemination thoughout the MSM might arise…?

    You see, it is my ‘legal theory’ that the lack of definition ‘locks’ any discussion of NBC in the status of a ‘political question’, however, once defind, the ‘political question’ falls away and it becomes a simple “matter of FACTual” findings.

    Looking at the practical, we could be holding ever piece of documentation on the ‘0’ that has been lacking but without the ‘legal’ definition it still would not be enough. His little mommy Anne was a ‘citizen’, lacking any other ‘legal definition’ that’s enough for his supporters.

    • 157 Jan December 25, 2010 at 9:47 pm

      Have you tried here:

      Emmerich de Vattel – The Law of Nations

    • 158 tfb December 25, 2010 at 10:09 pm

      it seems they don’t want a definition, even though it’s obvious what it is by what it isn’t…

      that seems not only to impact obama’s eligibility but the “U.S. Citizen” corporate fiction status

      Click to access ss-5.pdf

      check this out…what if you wrote in natural born Citizen instead of checking the box
      they’d FREAK OUT!

      • 159 Chester December 26, 2010 at 3:59 pm

        @tfb & @slcraig

        RE: “it seems that that don’t want a definition (of nbc)….”

        The opposition will fight tooth and nail against a definition, because they know full well that a definition would likely not favor their case. If slcraig can get a definition he is a hero, and his action will be recorded in history as one of the greatest legal achievements.

        However, in my opinion the Judiciary Branch is just as corrupt as the other two branches. Lower courts will not give him the definition. SCOTUS does not have to explain why they don’t want to hear it. He gets the 4 votes or not. So even if they privately would agree with his reasoning, officially they can refuse to hear it by not giving him the 4 votes.

        That is why I think that without some parallel political action SCOTUS will do their “dereliction of duty” act as usual. If through the new House some move could be generated to ask for definition by SCOTUS, slcraig may get the 4 votes.

  61. 160 Jan December 25, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    Has anyone read “Frontman” by Victor Thorn? Or any of Thorn’s expose books?

  62. 161 tfb December 25, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    Edwin Viera, J.D., Ph.D., an actual (not pretend, like Obama) Constitutional Law Professor from Harvard wrote about Obama being a non-natural born Citizen usurper back in 2008
    “Obama must step up or stand down”

    also there have been M&M challenge to US Code 1401 in the past 58 years

  63. 163 Jan December 25, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    AWWWWWWWW, Abercrombie is upset and I think this article must be talking about Miss Tickly

    Guess that’s why mochelle had to go visit Abercrombie!!!

  1. 1 The Intellectual Dishonesty of the Eligibility Deniers « drkatesview | Trackback on December 21, 2010 at 9:52 pm
  2. 2 Tweets that mention The Intellectual Dishonesty of the Eligibility Deniers « drkatesview -- Trackback on December 21, 2010 at 10:09 pm
  3. 3 THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY OF THE ELIGIBILITY-DENIERS‏ « The Ghostfighters Trackback on December 22, 2010 at 6:11 pm
  4. 4 | Trackback on December 22, 2010 at 6:40 pm
  5. 5 “Peace” on Communist Terms « drkatesview Trackback on December 23, 2010 at 7:12 pm
  6. 6 Media Dishonestly Trying to “Rehabilite” Obama « drkatesview Trackback on December 27, 2010 at 12:46 am
  7. 7 The Breach of Article II « drkatesview Trackback on January 2, 2011 at 2:56 am
  8. 8 | Trackback on January 2, 2011 at 3:21 pm
  9. 9 Inside the Gate « drkatesview Trackback on January 7, 2011 at 12:15 am
  10. 10 Sell-Out Obamas « drkatesview Trackback on January 18, 2011 at 11:33 pm
  11. 11 Showing Your Birth Certificate is as American as Apple Pie « drkatesview Trackback on January 22, 2011 at 11:12 pm
  12. 12 Dual Citizenship and the Presidency, Part II « drkatesview Trackback on January 24, 2011 at 12:06 am
  13. 13 Democrats are The Problem - Page 3 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum Trackback on February 18, 2011 at 1:13 am
  14. 14 | Trackback on March 9, 2011 at 5:01 pm
  15. 15 Dereliction of Duty « drkatesview Trackback on March 22, 2011 at 12:02 pm
  16. 16 Trump Card Beats Race Card « drkatesview Trackback on March 28, 2011 at 1:26 pm
  17. 17 The WTF? Campaign Song « drkatesview Trackback on April 23, 2011 at 12:57 am
  18. 18 Adverse Inference-update « drkatesview Trackback on April 27, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Comments are currently closed.

December 2010

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 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: