Supreme Court Decides Obama’s Eligibility: Calling the Provost Marshal

©2011 drkate

One of the most obvious reasons the Supreme Court has refused to take any eligibility case is that it -the Supreme Court- has already decided the matter of Obama’s eligibility for office–in 1875.  Reaffirmed several times since then and even by Congress in 2008, there is no need for a ‘clarified’ definition of  ‘natural born citizen’, and Obama can be removed right now…not by impeachment, not by a Congressional wimps ‘r us hearings,  not by the 25th Amendment–but by his immediate arrest.

A review:

  • The binding language in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that requires the president be a natural born citizen:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”  Minor v Happersett 1875

“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”  Luria v. U.S., 1913

The Fourteenth Amendment was definitively a statement about slaves becoming citizens of the United States; and the arguments from the flat-earth eligibility deniers have been thoroughly discredited.  They have managed to distract the general public away from this dangerous threat to our national security…and those that continue to cover for him will one day have to tell their children–from their own jail cell– how they allowed this mess to go on.

Until Minor v. Happersett is overturned, the SCOTUS holding stands: Obama is not eligible to be president of the United States.  He is only a usurper.

The Provost Marshal is nominated by the President and Defense Secretary…and the Defense Secretary would have to give the order to arrest…what to do when the usurper has control ?

Put on your big boy pants and arrest him or resign.

Not sure where the new guy’s loyalties, or testicular fortitude, would be. 😯 The idea is simple: lock him out, and lock him up…forever.  Couldn’t happen to a more perfect foreign agent.

62 Responses to “Supreme Court Decides Obama’s Eligibility: Calling the Provost Marshal”

  1. 1 Jan November 23, 2011 at 1:19 am

    Leon Panetta was pulled from his politician builder school in CA to head the CIA in 2009, then made the head of Dept of Defense in 2011.
    I think he was with Clintons, but why do you suppose he was brought back to DC in 09, maybe because obat’s handlers knew that Panetta would never issue the order to have obat arrested?

  2. 2 Drew November 23, 2011 at 2:45 am

    “…… The idea is simple: lock him out, and lock him up…forever. Couldn’t happen to a more perfect foreign agent.”

    The link for “foreign agent” goes to a three-part story (on one page), titled: “Bombshell: Barack Obama conclusively outed as CIA creation”.

    That story has (at least) five parts — as found here:

    • 3 Drew November 23, 2011 at 2:51 am

      drkate, this phrase has an extra “the” — which is confusing:

      “…… and the arguments from the flat-earth the eligibility deniers have been thoroughly discredited. …”

      ( please delete this note, if you want )

    • 4 Starla November 23, 2011 at 12:01 pm


      * * * *


      * * * *


      * * * *

  3. 5 borderraven November 23, 2011 at 4:15 am

    Both Minor v Happersett (1874)(Minor) and Perkins v Elg (1939)(Elg) cite the Act of Congress XXII February 10, 1855(Act):

    “1-That persons heretofore born, or hereafter born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or shall be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered, and are hereby declared, to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.
    “2-And be it further enacted, That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.[6]

    First Elg relies on the Act to naturalize Marie Elg’s mother, in 1906 naturalization of Mr Elg, but makes no overt mention of this fact.

    Secondly Elg cites the Act, but only to discuss dual-nationality and the claims of allegiance a foreign State may claim, but not the allegiance the dual-national has power to exert in an act of treason.

  4. 6 Greg Goss November 23, 2011 at 9:02 am

    I would like to use some of this in a letter to my reps, if you don’t mind.

    • 7 drkate November 23, 2011 at 9:24 am

      absolutely use at will Greg. Thanks

      • 8 sky November 23, 2011 at 10:18 am

        obama fundraiser John Corsiner MF Global world custermer accounts of 1.7 billion buy silver political vel craft website

      • 9 Starla November 23, 2011 at 10:30 am


        * * * *


        * * * *


        * * * *

        • 10 Tenacity November 23, 2011 at 12:11 pm

          It is my opinion that this kind of charismatic conjecture has no place here. I avoid it in my life and I will avoid it here. I believe it will keep people from spending time here and diminish the credibility of all other messages conveyed at this blog.

        • 12 heather November 23, 2011 at 12:24 pm

          Starla–thank you for these videos and to truth be known, we must put our faith and trust in Our Lord. Without him we will fail.

  5. 13 heather November 23, 2011 at 9:12 am

    OT–I know this is really off target here, but this is important for everyone to know..if you do not want to be tracked leave your phone in the car or turn it off. Never let anyone track your movements and this is stalking IMHO.

    • 14 Tenacity November 23, 2011 at 10:01 am

      Remove the battery from your phone.

      • 15 borderraven November 23, 2011 at 11:26 am

        Removing the battery may turn the phone circuit off for the user, but a fine wire coil in the GPS circuit can still generate power by induction and transmit your location. Don’t think so? Well, we are constantly being bombarded by pulsed-coded frequencies, from antennas, and satellites. You need a Faraday cage or a powered-down microwave oven, and a Faraday pouch to electronically hide your cellphone.

    • 18 Troy November 23, 2011 at 6:31 pm

      Also, just to be on the safe side, when you are issued a NEW state driver’s license, put that sucker in the microwave and cook it on high setting for about 15 – 20 seconds….Any micro RFID chip embedded within it should get well zapped.

  6. 19 sky November 23, 2011 at 10:36 am

    What’s behind 99 percenters ad company for pepsi @ ford worldnetdaily, dont buy these products,sell these stocks

  7. 20 cfkerchner November 23, 2011 at 11:07 am

    NH Rep Present at NH Ballot Law Commission Hearing Responds to NH AG’s Request for Investigation of them Instead of Obama | @ The Post & Email

    The hypocrisy and chutzpah of the New Hampshire Attorney General and the Speaker of the House of Reps! They would rather investigate the people who attended the Election Commission meeting for possible infractions rather than investigate Obama for the charges of felony SSN identity theft fraud, forging a birth certificate, and election fraud being perpetrated on the Citizens of New Hampshire. Why are they protecting Obama? Tell the Speaker of the NH House of Reps and the NH Attorney General to formally investigate the charges against Obama, not the people and messengers asking them to do it.

    CDR Kerchner (Ret)

    • 21 borderraven November 23, 2011 at 11:32 am

      NH Barack Obama Declaration of Candidacy 2012

      Any objections?

  8. 24 heather November 23, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    I pity these poor, stupid, coward politicians. They take an oath to uphold and defend and in the same breath, turn on us for demanding representation of protection against this usurper.

    What spineless wimps we elected. Each one of them knows barry is ineligible and yet they sit there and pretend to hear us and do nothing. Nothing at all. Promises of wealth and power, and lifetime jobs with wealth that is stolen from us. Are they so afraid to be their own man? It looks that way.

    But they will use the excuse that by removing barry, there will be racial wars across the country from the blacks–so what — we have cops to handle this and its time that these do nothing politicians stand up and be honorable men and women that they “sold” us.

  9. 25 legalbrad November 23, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    My father is a lawyer for the federal government. I brought this article to his attention and he told me there was a problem

    He said, here is the quote above from Minor:

    “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    He said the paragraph has been cut, and it continues on:

    “…Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    So, it says right there, clearly, in the decision itself, that the judges did not offer any opinion on kids born to foreigners on U.S. soil. It says, “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubt.”

    He said thats why, even only 20 years later, none of the judges or lawyers in the famous Wong Kim Ark case used Minor to bolster their argument. It was never considered precedent on citizenship, neither then or now.

    I think hes right. He’s very well trained. And not an Obama supporter at all.

    • 26 drkate November 23, 2011 at 12:47 pm

      No paragraph has been ‘cut out’…the paragraph you site is not relevant to this article…and it only confirms the first paragraph as to who is a natural born citizen. As cited on numerous blogs, Wong Kim Ark was decided in the context of citizenship, not a natural born citizen…and used the 14th amendment. I am not surprised that any lawyer working in government now comes up with this misinformation…for to admit that Obama is not an NBC just shows how they too have been misinformed and have their heads in the sand on this issue.

      • 27 legalbrad November 23, 2011 at 1:03 pm

        I didn’t mean to say the article was purposely misinforming anyone. But with all due respect Dr. Kate, I really feel like you are wrong if you don’t see how the judges clearly said they did not solve any doubts as to citizenship of kids born to foreigners on U.S soil, and how that clearly makes Minor not any sort of precendent on citizenship. It is probably why the Supreme Court has refused at least 8 cases on Obama’s citizenship that cited Minor. I’ve also not found anyone other that Mr. Donofrio, Ms. Taitz of lawyers affilitated with them to agree with this view of Minor. My lawyer friends tell me a lawyer would look a fool if they actually presented the Minor in this way in court. Just what they told me.

        • 28 drkate November 23, 2011 at 1:12 pm

          Here again, we are talking ‘citizenship’ versus ‘natural born citizen’. These are two different classes. The eight cases were not on Obama’s “citizenship” they were on whether he is a natural born citizen. For example, if he was born in HI, that might make him a citizen, but he can never be a natural born citizen under the current SCOTUS definition.

          Misrepresentation comes when one says a ‘citizen’ is the same thing as a ‘natural born citizen’. If the founders thought that only ‘citizen’ was required of the presidency, then they would have simply said that. Instead they qualified the presidency, to assure undivided allegiance, by requiring that person be natural born.

          Losing sight of the true national security protection offered by the president being a natural born citizen, with the ‘opinion’ of misinformed attorneys, has allowed this country to install a usurper who cannot even legitimately claim to be an american citizen, a full-blooded american. We have a foreigner in the WH committing espionage and murder of our country as we speak.

          Obama can never be qualified for that office, and mob rule, aka, democracy and voting, has nothing to do with it. I have simply concluded that our crop of so called leaders simply does not care about the constitution and does not see it as guiding their actions. Obama is a criminal usurper and should be arrested and jailed…and everyone else who covered this up.

          • 29 Tenacity November 23, 2011 at 1:52 pm

            I would just like to reiterate: Natural = by no other means and specifically, the term of art recognized in writing by the founders, Natural Born Citizen as codified in the Law of Nations is the purest form of citizenship. Native born simply refers to where one was born. If a person is born on the soil but of “a” non-citizen parent, they may be native but have a divided allegiance via the non-U.S. citizenship and this was considered a security risk by the founders. The founders deliberately elevated the citizenship requirement for just the Commander in Chief and his V.P. for specifically that reason.

            Now, in the case of Obama, we know that his father was NEVER a citizen of any of these united States. We also know that Obama was at one time an Indonesian citizen and that it has not been represented by him that he ever naturalized. Either of these FACTS renders him NOT a natural born citizen. If he naturalized, then he is a citizen by other means than natural.

            Although the quoted court cases were not specific to the superior definition of Natural Born Citizenship, they did in fact reiterate that there is no doubt of an inhabitant’s citizenship when they are born on the soil of citizen parentS. That’s what Natural Born means…NO DOUBT, no divided allegiance. A dual citizen can never be a natural born citizen. Although Obama has in fact never proved his citizenship, the debate here is not over whether he is a citizen. Some have even conceded that to avoid confusing the argument. The requirement is to be Natural Born Citizen and he is not by his own admissions. The man is a fraud and does not even have a legitimate social security number.

            The evidence is overwhelming that he has been INSTALLED by criminals for criminal purposes. He is not alone in his guilt and it goes far deeper than just his apparent handlers.

        • 34 Troy November 23, 2011 at 7:04 pm

          Leo Donofrio is specifically asking for any practicing attorneys to come to his blog site and challenge any of his opinions and / or findings.

          He has limited posting privileges at his site to attorneys only…..Have your father go there and explain to Mr. Donofrio how he would look foolish in a court of law by citing Minor -v- Happersett as legal binding precedent for the definition of term “natural born Citizen” as it is used withing the U.S. Constitution.

          I can guarantee you that by the time a discussion between them is concluded that your father will have reconsidered his opinion that you have stated above.

          Donofrio hasn’t had anyone take up his challenge yet….Talk your father into being the first one that sets Mr. Donofrio straight….I look forward to seeing the results of your father’s well thought out opinion….This should be interesting! 😀

          By the way, you forgot about attorney Mario Apuzzo who also agrees that Minor set a precedent.

        • 35 cedartree November 23, 2011 at 8:55 pm

          Minor v. Happersett’s ruling is precedent holding, cited over 25 times in other cases. Minor was the case reference deleted in these 25 instances by prior to the 2008 election.

          Minor evolves also from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which is still valid (just like the Federal Reserve Act, for example)…


          1866 Civil Rights Act
          14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.
          CHAP. XXXI.
          An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
          “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”

          • 36 borderraven November 24, 2011 at 10:17 am

            1866 Civil Rights Act, ends “Anchor Baby Citizenship”.

            But, we need legislation revising the birth registration process.

            • 37 cedartree November 24, 2011 at 12:14 pm

              The 14th was only for freed slaves, the Dems have abused it for illegal immigration purposes.
              Whatever citizenship the baby is born with BY PARENTAGE is what holds.
              Since the US does not offer dual citizenship, the baby is only one or the other.
              The bottom line is that 2 US Citizen parents, born on US soil is a natural born citizen. 1 US Citizen parent born anywhere is a naturalized statutory citizen. 0 US Citizen parents is NOT a US Citizen, though they can naturalizze.

  10. 39 borderraven November 23, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Having gone through the NH Elections Committee, this now needs to go through the Grand Jury.

    • 40 drkate November 23, 2011 at 4:35 pm

      do you know anyone in NH that is pursuing that? And, could a sheriff over there call for a grand jury investigation?

      • 41 borderraven November 23, 2011 at 5:07 pm

        Dr Kate, Anybody, preferably a registered voter in New Hampshire can file a complaint to the NH Grand Jury, once the Elections Committee has violated the constitution(s) by placing Obama’s name on the ballot, evidence being the sample ballot.

  11. 42 Troy November 23, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    You don’t need to speak or understand the Russian language to know what this news caster thinks of Obama….Keep your eyes on her left hand. 😆

  12. 44 Troy November 23, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Even better here!


  13. 45 heather November 23, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    Let me just wish everyone here a very Happy and Safe Thanksgiving tomorrow.

    We must all give thanks that Our Lord shines his light on America and he will bring a quick end to this coup and restore our law and order written in our constitution.

  14. 47 cedartree November 23, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    It’s not PC, it’s taboo, it’s an abhorrent, but it’s truth based on an act of congress called the CRA of 1866
    “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States…”

    The fact is, the United States does not offer dual citizenship, and an Act of Congress deems anyone with ANY foreign citizenship is not a US Citizen at all. There is a HUGE MYTHOLOGY perpetuated by the left that this law does not exist, when it does! And it is still the actual valid law! The mere discussion of this law, which is suppressed actively by the left, is evidenced on which states the law, then immediately tries to caveat it with the 14th amendment section 1, as if this “undoes” CRA 1866, when the 14th was meant to give US Citizenship to former slaves.

    –Lincoln was elected in 1861.
    –He signed The Emancipation Proclamation in 1863
    –1865 13th Amendment added: Republican Party Abolishes Slavery forever (77% of Democrats against it, 100% of GOP for it)
    –1866 Republican Party passes the Civil Rights Act of 1866 TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF NEWLY FREED SLAVES
    –1868 14th Amendment passes GRANTING US CITIZENSHIP TO NEWLY FREED SLAVES (0% of Democrats supported it).

    The author, John Bingham (R), Father of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Congressional Record

    “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen…”

    The 14th was added in 1868 and Minor v. Happersett was ruled on in 1875. There is no conflict. The 14th’s purpose is now abused, lied about and misused by the Democrats, who were against CRA 1866, and 13th and 14th amendments…they LIE about it as a jus soli only status makes for US Citizenship. Born “subject to jurisdiction” meant that a newly freed slave had no country, they were country-less, and so they were only born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA.

    A baby born on US soil of 2 Mexicans is a Mexican citizen, based on Mexico’s laws and America’s laws. Jus soli only babies are born subject to the jurisdiction of other countries, they are born foreign citizens.

    This subject is taboo because the “jus soli only” myth is perpetuated heavily by the democrats to encourage illegal immigration. It is infuriating since historically democrats not only voted to keep slavery and voted to prevent freed slaves from enjoying rights as US citizens, but now democrats abuse the 14th’s intention, trying to make it sound like anyone born on US soil is an automatic US citizen.

    US Code 1401 Section 8 does not say that just being born on US soil makes you a US citizen, it says only being born on US soil “subject to jurisdiction”, reflecting the 14th, which was meant only for newly freed slaves.

    US Code 1401 is modern-written to try to make it sound like jus soli only is a US Citizen, but it actually still reflects the 14th and CRA 1866. Look at section 2
    “(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;”

    this matches perfectly with CRA 1866
    “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”.

    Wikipedia, by Wikimedia which is Obama funded, is trying to say the 14th outweighs CRA 1866, when in fact they are perfectly complementary. Wikipedia strenuously tries to rewrite an Act of Congress by virtue of made-up babble.

  15. 52 Tenacity November 23, 2011 at 11:12 pm

    Just think, if Benjamin Franklin had been successful in having the Turkey as the national bird, we might all be eating Bald Eagle tomorrow.
    Happy Thanksgiving from Steamboat Springs, Colorado! $25 skiing here on Thanksgiving. I have skied most of Colorado and this will be my first time skiing Steamboat. I’m hoping it will be $25 on Friday too.

  16. 53 Jan November 24, 2011 at 12:10 am

    Posted on | November 22, 2011 on

    • 54 cedartree November 24, 2011 at 12:18 pm

      Orly should use someone else to present her data. Her accent and high pitch shop-vac voice turns everyone off to the important facts at hand.

  17. 55 madeleine7 November 24, 2011 at 12:27 am

    Happy Thanksgiving to every-one. @Tenacity. Starla has a perfect right to post those videos here ( I think!). To be honest, you post rubbish ( in my opinion!) against the Catholic Church, Jesuits etc. The fact that you do so ( you have every right) does not detract from your very knowlegable views on other subjects.

    • 56 Tenacity November 24, 2011 at 8:29 am

      Did I say anything about right? When I claim to be a prophet, I wouldn’t blame Dr. Kate for banning me permanently. If you believe any of my comments regarding secret societies and cults are unfounded, how about challenging those comments and back up your challenge with observable data. We are in a spiritual battle and the international banksters are tied in with all of the secret societies and the occult. They are the de facto shadow government that pulls the strings, including installing the usurper.

      When the Kool-Aide drinking obots argue, they just denigrate by personal attack (i.e.: rubbish) without supporting their “opinion” with observable data or even syllogistic reason. Bring on the healthy debate. If you want to listen to some self proclaimed profit, you might consider joining one of the cults as they have plenty of them. Of course we are all entitled to our opinions.

  18. 59 cynkading November 24, 2011 at 7:00 am

    ~~Happy Thanksgiving to Dr. Kate and all of her loyal patriots~~

    May God Bless each of you while we give thanks for all of HIs blessings.

  19. 60 Natural Born Citizen November 29, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    pResident Obama should be held to the same standard specified in Senate Resolution 511 that Senator Obama sponsored to vet Senator McCain. Obama’s S 511 stated that whereas John Sidney McCain III was born to American citizen parents on US soil (an American military base), it was therefore resolved that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

    The fraudulent birth certificate that Obama produced could have said he was born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House and he would still not be a natural born citizen. Obama’s father was a British subject, and therefore Obama cannot meet the standard that he himself espoused.

  20. 61 R. C. Jackman December 19, 2011 at 7:36 am

    “A natural born citizen of the United States is a child of two citizen parents. It matters not where the child was born.”

  1. 1 Letter to New Hampshire Legislators | Greg Goss's Blog Trackback on December 23, 2011 at 11:11 am
Comments are currently closed.

November 2011
« Oct   Dec »

Get Your Copy at

All Pets Haven

Blog Archives

Just follow copyright law and nobody gets hurt!

The contents of this blog are protected under U.S. Copyright Law, United States Code, Title 17. Requests for use of active and archived articles in this blog must be presented in writing in the comment section, and proper attribution is expected. Thank you in advance.

drkatesview thanks you!

Since 8/15/09


Listen to drkate’s Revolution Radio

RSS Big Government

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

RSS American Thinker

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

RSS American Spectator

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

%d bloggers like this: