_________________
Yes We Can! ~ Thomas Jefferson

by what authority do our laws even exist without a legitimate president?

We have to come from every angle, out of the woodwork, out of the blue: unexpected, unanticipated, our actions not directed at

* Massive effort to force Republicans in Congress to investigate Obama, including civil disobedience. [highlight]How about if we show up and don

Comment by drkate | 2008-06-17 08:22:21

I was born in Mexico before barack was even conceived. my birth certificate is quite detailed. Obambi’s is clearly a fake. He’s hiding something.

keep digging everyone. we’ll find it.

In perusing some very early Birther writings, I came across a particular comment on this page that caught my attention (emphasis mine):



Thus, Kate herself is not a "natural born citizen" under her own definition. (Though she admits this in passing.)

This should remind us how potent denialism can be. There's no shortage of Birthers who are so mentally convinced that Obama should not be President that they're willing to adopt an interpretation of eligibility that would unnecessarily exclude themselves, their parents, or their children from becoming President.

The next two sons are also disqualified because the Taitz family is Jewish and we have that little Law of Return thing making them Israeli duals. So, in her hatred and lunacy Taitz doesn't disqualify herself, she disqualifies her own children.

Dr Kate seems to be insinuating that Obama plans on announcing the capture of Osama bin Laden right before the election to assist Dems. This would be fine and dandy by me.

Now that the Obama-socialist-democrat-dominated House and Senate has had a log thrown in its tracks, and is in disarray, it is an opportune moment to review and regroup in ferreting out the strategies to remove Obama based on his lack of eligibility. Having lost his first layer of protection, and potentially his NWO backing, Obama’s eligibility shield has cracks that can only get larger, if we widen them effectively.

Taking the case will allow for the definition of natural born citizen, and, in my opinion, would either directly result in the removal of Obama or indirectly through subsequent action of Congress, if directed by the Court to apply its definition and investigate. This is also an option that could produce an immediate resignation by Obama for other reasons than the exposure of his background. If he is removed pursuant to a Supreme Court decision, Congress would be obliged to review and rescind all executive actions and laws signed.

The fundamental disability which prevents Obama from discharging his duties, in my opinion, is that he is illegally occupying the White House. Using that disability to remove Obama under the 25th Amendment, however, exposes the entire Cabinet and all the succeeding officials to charges of fraud–they have all served under him and supported him for two years.

Timing of any resignation is important to meeting the criterion of a solution which allows the repeal of every action he has taken. For example if he resigns before the Supreme Court hears the Kerchner case, will the case still be heard and definition of NBC determined? And can or will Congress review and repeal his actions? Resignation will not result in a definition of natural born citizen if all the cases are dropped.

Impeachment proceedings would meet none of the criteria above, especially identifying Obama as a usurper, the definition of natural born citizen, and the nullification of all his actions.

Let’s Parteeeeee. Comedy Central is where its at.

Yusef Islam, wow, I am so glad to relate to you in Washington, DC. I really dig your religion. Man, like far out. You’re just so rational and deserving of capitalism, man. Thanks for entertaining us. Man, I’m moved. Life Changing experience with you and Ozzie and the OJays. Man, I lived to see it. I can go to my grave on the Peace Train. LOVE. BUCKS. Morning has broken for you. WOW. You have satisfied my purpose, my reason to be born. We’re so blessed by your presence. Encore!!!! Sing a song about stoning women, man. Far out. you gotta dig, Young American Troops in Afghanistan, Cat Stevens incarnate in DC. Sorry you missed the Sanity/ Fear Show. We rocked Yusef when you were in your Cradles, remember? You gotta get tivo, Troops. Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert really appreciate your service…you make it possible…

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.


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.

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’.

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.

Look out. If you say she hates Obama, she might come over here with her 0.02, too.

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’.

Notwithstanding Obama’s lack of constitutional eligibility for the office he occupies as a direct result of his father’s citizenship, Obama can’t even prove he is an American. In fact the only thing we can confirm about Obama is that he is a foreigner–foreign to America, foreign to the english language, and ignorant of our history. At this late date, after millions of dollars spent, people mysteriously dying, and the jailing of a decorated Army officer–all of whom questioned Obama’s legality–any so called ‘birth certificate’ produced now is nothing more than suspect, and it is more than likely another faked document…a worthless piece of paper just like all of Obama’s so called ‘credentials’.

We know Obama was born British, is likely a Kenyan citizen, and is Indonesian; we know he was never naturalized as an American citizen; we know there is no record of his name change from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama, II; we know he lied on his Illinois bar form about his previous names; we know he is using a stolen social security number, and that he has multiple social security numbers, and we know that Obama has a forged selective service registration.

Who commands this kind of silence, and loyalty, but the ‘new world order’ and their intelligence agencies like the CIA?

Their mistake? Americans know Americans. Obama is not a natural born citizen; not a citizen of the United States; and not an American. Go ahead Obama, prove us wrong. Obama can’t, and can’t handle the truth that 65% of Americans do not believe Obama at all.

Obama has admitted to ineligibility and has been found guilty of Treason to the Constitution. That means that all executive orders issued and bills signed by him are NULL and VOID, and that every order given as Commander in Chief (ALL military orders originate there) are UNLAWFUL. All who honor their oath and/or commitment to the Supreme Law of the Land – the Constitution of the United States are now being asked to join me and millions of other patriotic Americans on:

LTC LAKIN DAY – January 1, 2011
to
STAND UP FOR THE CONSTITUTION

STAND DOWN FROM ALL UNLAWFUL ORDERS

… unless Barack Hussein Obama, as the de facto Commander in Chief, PROVES that he can give anything other than UNLAWFUL ORDERS*.

Who has been affected by UNLAWFUL (Presidential) Executive Orders and Bills, and UNLAWFUL (Commander in Chief) ORDERS?

* 2nd AMENDMENTERS
* AIR TRAVELERS
* AMERICAN LEGIONNAIRES
* CITIZENS MILITIAS
* CONSTITUTIONALISTS/CONSTITUTION PARTY
* MILITARY (everyone on active duty – officers & enlisted alike)
* OATH KEEPERS
SENIOR CITIZENS
* TAXPAYERS
* TEA PARTIERS
* VETERANS
* Etc., etc. (anyone who is living under or sworn to the Constitution, fill in your organization or your name here:________________)

Pieter Nosworthy December 30, 2010 at 7:10 am

Bad juju to encourage active military to abrogate duties…I highly suggest you amend the article. This is a matter for civilians (primarily), why are you complicating the decision making process of the junior enlisted that have it tough enough as it is?

Federal statute that restricts Americans during time of War; “Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so…” (Title 18, § 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war)

I am working with lawyers for a basis on which active duty can challenge without abrogation. Again, this article is counter productive with regard to those still in uniform.

-Noz