Politically Correct?

©2012 drkate

(h/t Jan)

Why is this ok…

Muslims shut down New York

And this isn’t?

Tim Tebow on the Sidelines

Americans being led down the path of political correctness.

Open Thread!

202 Responses to “Politically Correct?”


  1. 1 drkate January 8, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    I’d rather be on my knees to my creator than sticking my ass up in the air.

  2. 4 Jan January 8, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    You and me both. I am so sick of politically correct garbage. My dad always said, you call a spade a spade and he wasn’t talking about black people.
    You say what you mean and you mean what you say.
    This is just mind control and nothing more, except it gives the “Progressives” more room to destroy the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

    • 5 heather January 9, 2012 at 2:21 pm

      Do you know how many people I offend because I call a spade a spade? It’s also called not beating around the bush. I see no sense in heming and hawing and errs and ahhs–that is bs. I just am who I am, and tell it like it is.

      No one pays my bills but me, and I owe nothing to no one, and if I choose to be honest over PC then to bad–honesty is the best policy….period..

      • 6 BeenLiedtoAgain January 10, 2012 at 4:15 am

        We are definitely two birds of the same feather! And I don’t give a rat’s ass who dislikes me, my ‘tude and/or my opinions. I am who I am and I ain’t about to change! “Political correctness” is definitely a leftist tool and I ain’t no fool. FTS!!

  3. 7 Tenacity January 8, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    Dr Kate wrote: If you’re not going to research it, then leave it at your last sentence. Remember you are the one who has disagreed that we go after Obama on his ineligibility, said it was not as important as everything else, and defended Paul for not mentioning it. I hardly see how you will get any traction here.
    *******************************************************
    Researching it to the extent I am able is precisely what I am doing.
    At no time have I ever disagreed that we go after Obama on his eligibility.
    At no time have I suggested that the eligibility issue was not important.
    I have suggested that in the absence of Sound Money, we are not likely to achieve standing on this or any other constitutional grievance.
    I have stated that I came to forgive Dr. Paul for not mentioning it and thought it foolish to push him into further marginalizing himself at this juncture.

    I expect to get as much traction as anyone going up against the Luciferian establishment.

    • 8 drkate January 9, 2012 at 10:52 am

      Ten, you have even gone after me saying that the eligibility issue was ridiculous for Paul to go after, seeing as he would be labeled crazy and that sound money was more important. Yes you have. I am not into arguing with you about it, nor do I feel it is even worth your time. This is an ego clash as to whose right or not about Romney. Given your focus on sound money, why have you not used the same argument re Romney?

      I am taking the Commander’s word for it, and until I hear anything else from Apuzzo, it is of no matter to me. Romney is no good for the job no matter if he is or is not an NBC. But to now go after Romney on NBC without any proof either way will render our arguments against Obama not credible as well…’oh here go the birthers again going after Romney blah blah blah.’

      Lets just simply let it go, and face it, anyone who is associated with poppy bush is suspect in many more ways than one.

    • 9 heather January 9, 2012 at 2:28 pm

      Well Ten, I agree that by pushing RP away for not coming forward is silly–we all know they know and they know it. Why would we bite off our nose to spite our face by not voting for the man who will uphold and honor our constitution just on that merit.

      If RP came out with eligiblity, he is cutting his own throat. There are other ways to skin a cat when all is said and done and he will take care of this issue when he is elected, I am sure. But now is not the time. We have all learned a very valuable lesson in this 08 election and one we will not repeat, but we have to have RP win to election. So if it means he is mum, oh well he will fix it later and we will pervail then.

      barry knows he’s a usurper and he knows we know, and he will have his day in the sun.

    • 10 Quantum Leap January 9, 2012 at 4:17 pm

      I totally agree on Ten’s stance about Dr Paul and the eligibility issue.

      Obammy is the British empire’s pawn and they made damned sure that he had a new Identification before this whole political scheme was created. Given the fact that we really can’t wait until November I would like to see obammy removed pronto based on his being batshit crazy. Refer to Article 4 of the 25th amendment which reads in part as follows:

      “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President….”

      None of his entourage will remove him so there has to be legal counsel to prepare and file appropriate removal proceedings before a competent court hired by the people. He has uspurped the consitution. Alot of people will go down with him including the supremes. This is a crisis of untold magnitude.

      We are out of time with the NDAA bill going into effect where he can determine the life and death of everyone.

      Occupy and T Party and other’s are now banding together to get this Lucifer out of office. Occupiers have caught on to this evil usurper. They have woken up. Time is of the esssence.

      Let Ron Paul do his job of winning and we fight this evil bastard on our own. One little lonely Ron Paul has no effect on his removal via ineligibility issue so why should he ruin his chances to win IF we ever reach elections?

      Santorum is losing ground as well as Romney and now it’s Huntsman’s turn to place in third. RP is still winning. God hear our prayer. The people are the end of their rope. The military are currently being deployed on American streets in certain states upstaging the police. The dollar is strategically slated to collapse soon. Our GDP is over 100% thanks to the usurper.

      We may not get to elections..it’s time to turn our focus onto obammy and his numerous dictatorship bills and theft of the US government and it’s assets.

      Watch him on TV and he SEEMS OKAY with his made up speeches designed to fool us….. but it’s not okay at all. Evil beyond our wildest dreams lurks and is fast approaching. Obots get aboard before you go down too.

      Obammy set up Hillary and she is taking the fall for many things namely the wars. Obammy is going to get us into another war soon only this time it’ll be world war III. He is hell bent on destruction.

      Don’t take your eye off the ball. When the congress creeps start maneuvering towards their underground bunkers, run for the hills. THE ELECTION IS A HUGE DISTRACTION.
      In a way having sound money beats obammy out of his own game.
      He depends on the weak dollar to take USA down. A thousand cuts remember?

      • 11 drkate January 9, 2012 at 4:25 pm

        I agree with Ten’s stand on the eligibility issue for Ron Paul as well…and was convinced by Ten a long time ago about that.

        This is why I don’t understand the fuss about Romney right now, or the focus on his eligibility. Not saying its not possible that he is ineligible, but if its not working for Paul to go after it, why are we focusing on Romney’s eligibility? I am convinced there is no there there right now. Go after him the way Paul is going after it.

  4. 13 Troy January 9, 2012 at 12:09 am

    drkate January 8, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    I’d rather be on my knees to my creator than sticking my ass up in the air.
    +++++++++++++++++
    ….or one’s face constantly in near contact with another’s blowhole directly in front of you.

    I wonder if they are forbidden to eat refried beans…..I wonder if fatwas are issued for having gas during prayer….I wonder if beheading is the punishment for scorching the face off of a fellow muzzie behind you….Is it okay as long as it’s silent? :shock: :lol:

  5. 15 Troy January 9, 2012 at 12:13 am

    I love this guy’s first analogy about race mongering….You’ll know it when you hear it. :lol:

  6. 16 Troy January 9, 2012 at 1:20 am

    OMG!!!….All this time, I’ve been wrong….She’s not a sasquatch….She’s a Wookie!

    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/210671.php

  7. 21 jane January 9, 2012 at 7:09 am

    This pretty much sums it all up folks!

  8. 23 slcraignbc January 9, 2012 at 7:34 am

    [quote][b][color=#0000BF]“Men, to act with vigour and effect, must have time to mature measures, and judgment and experience, as to the best method of applying them. They must not be hurried on to their conclusions by the passions, or the fears of the multitude. They must deliberate, as well as resolve.”[/color]

    –Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833[/b][/quote]

    I offer this in the light of question of the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” of Article II Section I Clause V inching its way before the Bench of SCOTUS for the deliberations upon its affects on the Political process of selecting/electing the POTUS/VPOTUS and the propriety of its Original usage within the Constitution and the desirability of its continuation as a fit and proper LAW upon the Office’s.

    I inquire of any that may find fault with the provision to offer for what cause it should be abridged, enlarged and/or otherwise modified from that definition found in Minor v Happersette.

    [quote]The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. 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. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

    [/quote]

    The following “suggestion” below was taken up by Geo. Washington and handed to the ‘Style and Form Committee” of the Constitutional Convention and its inclusion was adopted by voice vote of the assembly in whole without debate or objection.
    [quote]“New-York, 25th July, 1787.

    Dear Sir,

    Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

    I remain, dear sir,

    Your faithful friend and servant,

    John Jay.” [/quote]

    [quote]Joseph Story, 1833, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1473.

    [color=#BF0000]It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election.[/color] This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced [color=#BF0000](for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct)[/color] out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. [color=#BF0000]But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman.[/color] It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.[/quote]

    Were the current world united in the forms of government and generally in agreements and treaties providing for international Peace reserving for each nation particular Rights within their territories, then, perhaps, there might be cause to revisit the Clause, but, such is not the status of the world.

    That the Clause reads “person” places no limit on race or gender and it is ONLY the circumstances of birth that informs the nature of citizenship acquisition that is ‘deemed’ appropriate for the Office of POTUS, 1st suggested in Aristotle’s Bk III on Politics as the ‘true citizens’ of a new State and further considered by Vattel giving reason and cause.

    But now I am interested in what I have not considered as being reasonable arguments against the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” of Article II Section I Clause V, because to date, I have found none being expressed other that than the claim that the Constitutional purpose is “obsolete”.

    What may come up as the current Challenges advance…?

    • 24 Ann January 9, 2012 at 12:24 pm

      You can only use HTML codes on WordPress. UBB doesn’t work, as you can see. Just an FYI. :)

      • 25 slcraignbc January 9, 2012 at 2:33 pm

        Thanks, I’m just lazy….it is a copy & paste from the edit box at my forum………..

        ………but the question stands……….what will be the “politically correct” objections to the true and correct definition of the Constitutional idiom of “natural born Citizen” being born of two (2) Citizen parents within the “jurisdiction”………..

    • 26 Quantum Leap January 9, 2012 at 4:53 pm

      Why beat a dead horse with a stick? (definition of Natural Born).

      I learned it in kindergarten didn’t you? “Must be born on US soil to US natural born citizens.” Native wasn’t even used then. Obammy made that term up. None of my parents could be president because they were born of ‘naturalized citizens’. Naturalized means “became American citizens at some point” by taking the oath of allegiance but brn a foreigner. I can be president because my parents are Natural Born citizens (but they cannot be president because they were born of NATURALIZED (TOOK THE OATH TO BE CITIZENS) parents.

      THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NATIVE BORN. IT’S A MADE UP TERM USED BY LIBERALS. IT HAS NO REAL MEANING.

  9. 27 patriot4usa January 9, 2012 at 10:13 am

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tebows-win-in-biblical-terms-john-316/ Averaged 31.6yds. 316 yds. total..Go Tebow! Favorite verse john 3:16

  10. 28 patriot4usa January 9, 2012 at 10:17 am

    John 3:16 -

    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. I Love You Tim Tebow!

  11. 29 patriot4usa January 9, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD !!

    • 31 drkate January 9, 2012 at 2:26 pm

      WOW! I was wondering about the Insider just today, and who he really was for. It would be telling if he was for anyone else but Ron Paul.

    • 33 Quantum Leap January 9, 2012 at 4:58 pm

      True thing. This is it folks. Nerobama is crazy batshit. Appearances are not always inward reality. What Nerobama APPEARS AS is not so. He is detrimental to lives of every American. Time is of the essence now.

  12. 34 patriot4usa January 9, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    A great watch from David Icke on or at OWS, check it out! http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2012/01/david-icke-video-report-from-occupy.htm alot of good information as to the what is really going on.

  13. 39 aprilnovember811 January 9, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    He needs to tell them he’ll pray as long as they do their stupid jigs on the field when the get a touchdown. They’re fine with dog killers, rapists, and wife beaters though.

    • 40 heather January 9, 2012 at 10:02 pm

      April–oh yes they are! They think nothing of Sandusky and co and Michael Vick and the rest of them.

      Oh and Pete Rose went to prison and removed from the hall of fame for gambling on his own team! Hmmm—not very fair.

  14. 41 no-nonsense-nancy January 9, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    I don’t know if this guy is legit. After all, Pastor Manning proved that thfraud never attended Columbia. But whata he says is true.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.aspe

  15. 43 A Crazy Old Coot January 9, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    The picture makes me wish I was there with a pea shooter. Such good targets! LOL

  16. 44 no-nonsense-nancy January 9, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Yes, the BO’s should read up on the French Revolution!

    http://www.restore-government-accountability.com/air-force-one-abuse.html

  17. 45 Quantum Leap January 9, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    Perry was the only one who mentioned obammy’s support for Islamists ahead of USA’s interests. He said it in a debate. (I think it was him).

    Now check this out and make your decisions. I had to listen to it over and over.

  18. 49 DABIGRAGU January 9, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    “Rewilding America” The Wildlands Project”

    Born out of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Agenda 21 serves as the comprehensive blueprint for achieving “sustainable development”. It’s many tentacles are being put into place by the agencies of the U.S. government such as the State Department, the Department of Energy, the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, etc. It is also being aided along by countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/rewilding/mission.html

    Untied Nations Plan for America:

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/rewilding/

    • 50 heather January 9, 2012 at 10:07 pm

      This crap agenda 21 just pisses me off to no end. Who the heck do they think they are—these resources belong to us. They were given to us by our Lord. None of this belongs to them…….I am sooooo sick of these disgraceful pos and they just need to be arrested for treason and theft.

  19. 54 DABIGRAGU January 9, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Meet the Lunatic Who’s Calling Ron Paul a Lunatic!

    Eric Dondero, the former Ron Paul aid who has been calling the Texas Congressman and Presidential candidate everything from a racist (at least he’s implied that he is) to a lunatic is—in fact—a racist and a lunatic!
    (Excerpt)
    more:

    http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=18786

    • 55 heather January 9, 2012 at 9:24 pm

      Ya know the more names they call RP the stronger he becomes….notice that?

      Remember, sticks and stones can hurt my bones, but names will never hurt me! One of the oldest sayings around—taught to me as a little girl by my mom! How true it is.

  20. 57 heather January 9, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-chief-of-staff-william-daley-will-quit-his-post/2012/01/09/gIQAz15xlP_story.html

    Because Michelle couldn’t boss him around and she hated him—trouble from Jarret as well. hmmm what does this say? I wonder.

  21. 61 A Crazy Old Coot January 9, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/9/new-hampshire-lawmakers-question-obamas-citizenshi/

    The Republican legislators and their supporters say Mr. Obama doesn’t meet the definition of “natural-born citizen” because his father was Kenyan. They are relying on an 1875 Supreme Court decision that said a natural-born citizen is someone whose parents are both U.S. citizens at the time of his or her birth.

    New Hampshire lawmakers question Obama’s citizenship

    http://www.washingtontimes.com

    President Obama is on the Democratic ballot for New Hampshire’s primary on Tuesday, despite the efforts of some Republican state legislators who argue the president doesn’t qualify as a “natural-born citizen.”

    ////////////////

    Read the rest at the above link.

  22. 62 hockeyfan530 January 9, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    The TX RNC response to Natural Born
    has anyone posted this yet?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/09/has-the-texas-gop-researched-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

    First, there definition of Natural Born seems wrong to me but more importantly they stated:

    ” When Obama was born the act was amended in 1952 requiring at least one parent to be US citizen and live in USA at least 10 years before birth and 5 years after 14. If Obama’s mother met this requirement he is considered “Natural Born” USA citizen even if born in Kenya ”

    doesn’t this prove that Barry is not Natural Born as his mom was too young to meet the 5 years after age 14?

    Am I reading this right?

    • 63 drkate January 9, 2012 at 7:44 pm

      no act of law can make one a ‘natural born citizen’

      • 64 hockeyfan530 January 9, 2012 at 7:57 pm

        i hear ya…

        But while trying to defend Barry doesn’t that last statement mean he’s not eligible EVEN by their “logic”?

        • 65 drkate January 9, 2012 at 8:02 pm

          the rule is that if he was born out of the country the Mom had to be a certain age…Stanley ann didn’t qualify. so if he was born in Us, by that language it doesnt matter. Point is we cannot look for nbc in statutory law–it is in the constitution and already defined by SCOTUS

            • 67 Tenacity January 10, 2012 at 2:29 pm

              The quoted law pertains to attaining a derivative form of birth citizenship. Derived from a qualifying parent (jus sanguinis). It does NOT apply to the term natural born. Stanley Ann Dunham, if that’s who she was and if that is when he was born, would not have been a qualifying parent due to her age. Just to affirm, I agree with Dr. Kate’s comments. If this is what the TX RNC has stated, they have no understanding of the term ‘natural born citizen’ and are confusing it as though synonymous with and failing to differentiate it from the broad term ‘citizen.’

    • 68 GORDO January 9, 2012 at 8:44 pm

      From “US Department of State” site:
      ———-
      “Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock”

      “A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. … For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child. The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.”

      “Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother”

      “A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.”

      http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html
      ***********************
      [If SAD and BHO were married.]:

      “… this is the scenario that would apply if Obama was not born in the United States. Obama’s father was not a United States citizen. Obama can therefore only rely on his United States citizen mother to make him a “citizen of the United States at birth.” But as we can see from 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g) (the only applicable statute), a mother had to be at least 19 years old when she gave birth to the child born abroad in order to transmit her United States citizenship to him. Obama’s mother, born on November 29, 1942, was 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old. But she had to be at least 19 years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy the legal requirement of Sec. 1401(g) (INA Section 301(g)). Therefore, Obama cannot benefit from Sec. 1401(g).

      Hence, if Obama was not born in the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment he is neither a United States citizen by birth on United States soil nor one by naturalization.”

      http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-is-putative-president-obamas.html

      • 69 drkate January 9, 2012 at 9:06 pm

        Thanks, Gordo.

      • 70 cedartree January 9, 2012 at 11:31 pm

        Apuzo calls that a “naturalized at birth citizen”

        • 71 drkate January 10, 2012 at 12:28 am

          please cite the paragraph where Apuzzo uses that phrase. Having read all of Apuzzo’s work I don’t think that is the case. It is very important not to confuse these terms, and to quote Apuzzo incorrectly. Serious business here.

          Conferring American citizenship is not the same as ‘naturalized at birth citizen’. “naturalization” is an affirmative act.

          • 72 Tenacity January 10, 2012 at 4:20 pm

            Thank you Dr. Kate. Allow me to restate from the previous thread in response to cedartree.

            I have tried to be polite, but you are certainly wearing on my patience. Not only did Apuzzo NOT say what you stated, but he made my very point in his first statement in the comments under the article:

            The Court explained at length the history of U.S. citizenship. It explained who the “original citizens” were. It then told us that other “citizens” could be added to the nation. It said that additions could be had by birth or naturalization. Since Virginia Minor was neither an “original citizen” nor a naturalized citizen, she could only be a born “citizen.”

            Now is that clear enough for you? Now cut with the disingenuous B.S. If you persist, I will have to assume you are one of the Obama enablers that Mario Apuzzo mentioned as misleading the public.

    • 73 slcraignbc January 9, 2012 at 10:16 pm

      Well of course such a definition is absurd, but the important thing is that they are NOW, finally, on record with a position and as these various States and vested groups continue to posit DIFFERING definitions it makes the NECESSITY of a SCOTUS ruling even more apparent to even the least interested citizen.

      New Hampshire says an ‘eligibility’ costs a $1,000., Oklahoma says Schneider v. Rusk, (can not be forcibly expatriated), is the test, Hawaii and others say ‘native born’ is synonymous with NBC, Obama’s defense says the “Votes” determined the Voters definition and so on.

      Sounds like there is a “Full Faith and Credit” issue between the various “controlling legal authorities” on the subject of NBC POTUS eligibility.

      • 74 cedartree January 9, 2012 at 11:31 pm

        Why should SCOTUS rule on a SCOTUS ruling?
        Minor already defines NBC.

        • 75 drkate January 10, 2012 at 12:25 am

          AGreed in principle. But with the states coming up with different definitions, the Supremes will eventually ahve to confirm what NBC is. They have no other precedent to go on but Minor…unless Obama is elected again. And then we have a problem. I don’t want these supremes to rule because they will gut their own ruling and go along with bambi.

        • 76 slcraignbc January 10, 2012 at 6:53 am

          Often times when the SCOTUS makes a Ruling the affects of that Ruling are taken up by the Congress who promulgate Laws respecting the Ruling.

          That did not happen with Minor v. As a matter of fact the Ruling made it apparent that a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary before the Women’s Right to Vote could granted, Constitutionally.

          “Precedent” made in a Ruling stands as Striae Decisis, settled Law in regard to any other case that comes before the Court, but it must come before the Court for it to be Ruled as Controlling on each new aspect or claim as they arise, unless the Congress takes up the ‘affects’ of the Ruling with Promulgated Laws or Declaratory Statements of Law.

          • 77 cedartree January 10, 2012 at 6:16 pm

            OK so Congress did follow up with Minor since the statutes rightfully only reflect naturalized by statute US citizens, which are never natural born citizens as proven by the contrast of Article I’s requirement for Congress versus Article II’s requirement for the presidency.

            So the laws are on the books for all naturalized statutory citizens, and none of these are natural born citizens. It’s like hammering sand into more sand, there’s no point, it’s already been done.

            • 78 slcraignbc January 10, 2012 at 8:54 pm

              Well, I’m afraid you misunderstand how the Judicial Branch operates independently from the Legislative and Executive Branch.

              Minor v. turned into a Constitutional question when the State of Mo. denied V.Minor the Right of Suffrage in a National General Election. She claimed that the 14th Amendment ‘made’ her a Citizen and as a Citizen she had the right to Vote. Mo. could not find that Right for a woman within their Laws.

              The SCOTUS 1st had to determine if the 14th did indeed ‘make’ her a Citizen. In doing their research the Court found that she was a Citizen without the need of the 14th Amendment, finding that she was a Citizen within the nature of Citizenship expressed in A2S1C5, a natural born Citizen.

              They also noted that the 14th did not address the issue of women’s suffrage and, in fact, the Right to Vote is not a Right within the Constitution but was rather left to the various States to establish their own standards.

              In the end all that was gained for Virgina Minor and women in general was to learn that a Constitutional Amendment was necessary in order for women to gain the Right of Suffrage.

              The Congress does NOT have the enumerated power to ‘abridge, enlarge and or otherwise modify’ the words of the Executive Articles EXCEPT by the Amendment process. Simple promulgated Acts can not, Constitutionally, change A2S1C5.

              Title 8 of the U.S Codes are codified from the various Acts signed into Law. Given that the 14th was/is a Collective naturalization Act with the Declaratory “Born” provision, it has also been Codified at #1401 of Title 8.

              Since the Minor case was regarding women’s suffrage and given that the lower Courts dismissals were upheld by the SCOTUS the subject was MOOT insofar as the Congress was concerned.

              That does not change the fact that the Court defined NBC, but it is still necessary to present the SCOTUS with a Bona Fide Petition asking specifically if that definition applies the the needs of A2S1C5 insofar as a Candidate/selected/elected/sitting POTUS is concerned.

  23. 82 no-nonsense-nancy January 9, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Just an other big distraction. From Motus.

    Monday, January 9, 2012
    One of these days Alice, one of these days!

    Well, it looks like the new Jodi book is really getting under people’s skin around here. It hasn’t even been officially released yet and already we’ve had to issue clarifications, interpretations, restatements and denials. I think at this point the best strategy is to issue the standard rhetorical question – “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” and let the MSM kill it.
    To wit, the “secret” Halloween Alice in Wonderland Tea Party in the State Dining Room: it never happened. Well the “secret” part anyway. Our official story is the party was totally transparent.

  24. 83 heather January 9, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    Let’s not forget in 2007 & 2008 Michelle interviewed with africanpress international and told them that there was no one and no way that her husband would not become POTUS based on any constitution/14th amendment. He had taught the constitution and knew he would win and become potus.

    Period–so there you have it from her mouth.

    They had it figured out well before he ran and had their ducks in a row when questions and investigated–all done under the radar.

  25. 84 Quantum Leap January 9, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    How could I have missed this? From 5 days ago.

    Laurie Robinson, assistant to Attorney General Eric Holder and responsible for disseminating billions of dollars from Obama stimulus funds, abruptly resigns from the Department of Justice.

    As with so many things circling the Obama administration, there is the official announcement of a departing official – and there is the as yet unknown truth behind that departure. Laurie Robinson’s departure was quietly announced on the eve of the Iowa Caucus, with a brief statement from Eric Holdler’s office.

    Robinson allocated nearly $3 billion in stimulus grants under the guise of assisting women, American Indians, and Alaska natives. She was also a primary contact within the Department of Justice in working with law enforcement agencies throughout the country regarding those same funds.
    As for her former boss Eric Holder – he has a likely and imminent future hearing with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee over the AttorneyGeneral’s complicity in the failed and deadly Fast and Furious gunrunning operation. To date nearly 100 members of Congress have publicly called for Holdler’s resignation or given him a vote of “no confidence” over the Fast and Furious debacle.

    Read more at Hardcore news. http://szaboservices.blogspot.com/2012/01/eric-holder-assistant-abruptly-resigns.html

    • 85 heather January 9, 2012 at 9:36 pm

      And he should be held accoutable for her allocation of that money. After all, it stops at the top and flows down.

      Never mentioned by the MSM — first I am hearing this-thanks for the link.

    • 86 drkate January 9, 2012 at 11:04 pm

      And why was the justice department responsible for distribution of stimulus funds?

      • 87 heather January 9, 2012 at 11:21 pm

        First and foremost there should never have been stimulis money or tarp or the omnibus money printed and given out. Biggest ripoff to all of us.

        Not sure how or why the JD would even be involved in the distribution of these funds and/or grants. I guess barry wanted to make sure that the redistribution of wealth went to who he promised.

        Let’s face it, 3/4s of these so called organizations are socialists groups in hiding, just like the rest of them who come out from under their rocks to reach their hands in the pockets of the tax payers.

        Holder not only has fast and furious on his plate, now who will he answer to for this…no one?

      • 88 Jan January 10, 2012 at 1:45 am

        So obat could make sure his buddies got the money and holder would never reveal where it actually went.

      • 89 Quantum Leap January 10, 2012 at 2:38 pm

        Thats a good question. Also, Elizabeth Warren is now part of the corruption.

    • 90 SallyAl January 10, 2012 at 1:44 pm

      Ulsterman covered this also.

    • 92 Jan January 10, 2012 at 1:44 am

      I can’t find it right now, but I did read that the congress had tried several times and failed to change the Constitution by amendment or bills and it appeared during the time obat was being considered for Senate. It would have changed the wording so that almost anyone could be president, no matter where they came from

      • 93 bill January 10, 2012 at 5:47 am

        Yes Jan,I know what you are saying is correct as I also read it .and there was
        several Congress critters who submitted at various times.This to me is tacit admission they knew O was ineligible because why else,would they bother ? The latest battle cry is “we must beat Obama” which alludes him to be some supreme
        authority which I suppose Congress hopes they can hide the fact they are .just
        as dirty.cheers

  26. 94 cedartree January 9, 2012 at 11:33 pm

    Just ask them
    What is the difference between a statutory naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen?

    There is no weasel-out.

    • 95 slcraignbc January 10, 2012 at 7:08 am

      i don’t now if it is ‘bribes, blackmail, coercion, intimidation or just plain ignorance” but there is a large number of people unwilling or unable to apply critical thinking to the subject of citizenship in general and the nature of natural born Citizens specifically.

      The longer I engage in the fight the more amazed I am at the depths, breadth and width of the willful ignorance parading as “enlightened statesmen and citizenship”, from the highest Office’s in the land to the farthest reaches of the various States.

      • 96 heather January 10, 2012 at 9:43 am

        Since this entire fiasco started in 07-I have learned there are some pretty stupid people in this country. I have found that most have NO common sense at all.

      • 97 Ann January 10, 2012 at 9:47 am

        Agree! Case in point, I have a friend on Facebook that stated she wanted Marco Rubio to run for POTUS. I commented that he’s not eligible to run and she had no idea why I said that. I told her he’s not a natural born Citizen because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen when Marco was born. She still had no clue what I was talking about so I gave her a link to go and read. She said she read it but I don’t think she was convinced or had any idea what I was talking about. NO one else made a comment, which told me they didn’t know either. It’s sad really that people don’t take the time to become educated. All they care about is who won the national college championship football game or who’s on Dancing with the [freaking] Stars or American Idol. Sickening doesn’t begin to describe it.

        • 98 heather January 10, 2012 at 11:34 am

          Yep, they are all to busy minding everybody elses bus on fb–or playing with their iphones, ipods, kindles and every other electronic gadgit. They want everything NOW and are not willing to work and save for anything, they believe it is owed to them, hence they are entitlees–and an entitlee can be someone who does work and earn a good living but spends foolishly on stupid things rather than earning a house, a car, furniture, vacas, all the important things.

          And to boot, it’s all about the kids, their kids have every single toy made, regradless of cost or what age that toy is made for. Just turn on HGTV and watch the parents who chose to feel life is owed to them.

  27. 99 Jan January 10, 2012 at 12:30 am

    Yes, an attorney gets the whole picture and takes on JB Williams

    A RESPONSE TO JB WILLIAMS’ ARTICLE ON RON PAUL
    By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
    January 10, 2012
    NewsWithViews.com

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin179.htm

    • 100 drkate January 10, 2012 at 10:33 am

      Great article! JB Williams is a false patriot, and the more I think about it, the more I would caution everyone away from his so called ‘patriots union’

      Excerpt:

      Williams says, “Ron Paul remains totally MIA (Missing In Action) on Obama’s Article II ineligibility, which disqualifies Obama for office and every member of congress, including Ron Paul!”

      This is a useless tool against Ron Paul and benefits no voters. There is not one Republican candidate taking on this issue. One has to ask, what difference does it make that Ron Paul is not leading the charge in this regard? If no one is taking on this issue as a part of their campaign, then everyone’s score is “zero to zero.” Williams’ use of “fact” is a tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic jab at Ron Paul as a “constitutionalist.” But this jab can be made universally to all the candidates; thus, this information is useless and irrelevant to persuade the voters and distinguish the candidates.

    • 101 no-nonsense-nancy January 10, 2012 at 10:50 am

      That is a very good response. I read JB’s aticle and was very disgusted. I am so irritated at the tea party. They are for all the wrong peope. Unless everyone gets behind RP in this election we are doomed as a country and we never be able to save it. they are stupid if they can’t see it.

  28. 102 aj January 10, 2012 at 10:37 am

    After Alabama judge Helen s Lee denied Al Hendershoot motion for stay in the Obama Ballot Access Lawsuit because he is white, reinforces my fear that no one will be able to overturn the corrupt racist machine that is in the WH and the whole government.They will pull any and every dirty corrupt trick in the book. Hold on America.

  29. 103 bill January 10, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    Well apparently JB Williams has either been co-opted or he always had a hidden
    agenda. I was disappointed when I finally snapped to the fact that many of the so called Conservative sites were also part of the in crowd of artful dodgers when some of my post just disappeared :) There is only two websites,this one and Arizona Tea
    Party that allows post to stand. I could understand if post were abusive or vulgar but they didn’t fall in that category. Early on,I was hoping Ron Paul would speak about the eligibility issue but finally realized it was a exercise in futility when the courts
    played the “We don’t know,We don’t care and you are not going to find out ” game.
    In fact ,my opinion of the courts is so low at this point,they would be hard pressed to get me to convict anyone for a parking ticket.Well like its said ” Believe only half or what you see and none of what you hear,until verified.cheers

    • 104 Tenacity January 10, 2012 at 8:12 pm

      bill, there is no way they would get me to convict anyone on a victimless crime. I’d love to get on a grand jury as there would be some real educatin’ goin’ on. I’d have those people judging the law and going after the real criminals.

      • 105 bill January 11, 2012 at 4:06 am

        Yes Ten, I believe everyone should have a small understanding of FIJA. This would stop much of the shenanigans going on. While I can certainly understand
        how citizens feel ineffectual and powerless to facilitate changes,little do any of us know,that what we say and do may cause others to “think” and this is my prime
        motivation. We didn’t get in this mess overnight so we can’t change it,overnight.Hanging in ,is our only option,imo. cheers

  30. 106 A Crazy Old Coot January 10, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    I am going to give up on posting my thoughts after this last one. I will not debate or answer questions or anything else after this.

    WHY does anyone in government or any of the news media, to include Fos, even pretend that we still have a Constitution?

    Article I: The Legislative Branch

    Section 8

    Clause 1:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    Clause 5:

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    1. One of the first things in the Constitution is the ability of Congress to coin money. Nowhere does it grant a private company the authority to coin (print) money, ie the Federal Reserve. So, that part of the Constitution is out.

    Clause 7:

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    2, When the Post Office became a private enterprise, it became UnConstitutional. So, that part of the Constitution is out.

    Clause 11:

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    3. Now the President or president, declares where and when we will go to war without even consulting Congress. So, that part of the Constitution is out.

    Section 9

    Clause 2:

    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    3. So, the NDA A bill signed by Mr. obama does away with Habeas Corpus and can imprison any citizen just on his say so. So, that part of the Constitution is out.

    Clause 7:

    No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

    4. There has never, to my knowledge, been a regular statement and account published. This is NOT a budget. So, that part of the Constitution is out.

    Clause 8:

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by theUnited States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

    5. So, accepting the Nobel Prize is not a present. Surree it’s not! How about a UN position? Well, another part of the Constitution is out.

    Clause 1:

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    6. ” make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”, does this mean that paper money is worthless?? One more part of the Constitution is out.

    Article II: The Executive Branch

    Section 1

    Clause 5:

    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.

    7. The Constitution states the eligibility requirements of the President and Vice President. It requires that they be a Natural Born Citizen. Born in the country of two Citizens. Well, that doesn’t seem to matter anymore. So, that’s out.

    I could go on, but the whole idea of the Constitution still being valid has been demonstrated. Why pretend any more. We have lost The United States of America unless a valid President and Vice President can be elected and Congress replaced with people that will honor their oath to the Constitution. I just don’t see that happening in this lifetime.

    May God Bless theUnited States of America or what’s left of it!

    • 107 drkate January 10, 2012 at 1:45 pm

      Coot, I hear you, and will miss you.

      I agree…the so called ‘patriots’ and ‘constitutionalists’ are NOT.

      I may follow in your footsteps–what is the point of a blog like this now?

      God Bless You, and God Bless America.

      Thank you for gracing these pages with your thoughts.

      • 108 Quantum Leap January 10, 2012 at 2:34 pm

        DK. Please don’t give up before the miracle. You do make a difference. That I am sure of that. I have proof. Coot will be back after taking a break…….. bet me especially since it’s an election year.

      • 109 heather January 10, 2012 at 4:43 pm

        Dr Kate,

        This is the last thing we need right now–for you to shut down, please, we need you, don’t shut down.

        We all here know that running this blog is a lot of work and time consuming, but in the end, your blog is so valuable to all of us.

        There is no where else for anyone of us to continue our work of making America great again. And of course we all know that you are committed to America so please don’t give up on us.

    • 110 Jan January 10, 2012 at 3:06 pm

      Coot, you pretty well covered it all.
      Thank you

    • 111 Paula January 10, 2012 at 3:41 pm

      Plain spoken truth. I’ll miss reading Coot’s posts….Common sense, grass roots American truth.

      We can’t give up the fight, though–standing up for what is lawful, right and good in this country…for the childrens’ sake.

    • 112 heather January 10, 2012 at 4:39 pm

      Coot

      Please don’t leave us…please?

  31. 114 patriot4usa January 10, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Sorry Frank..Sinatra style!

    • 116 no-nonsense-nancy January 10, 2012 at 2:23 pm

      What more can they do to us? They have cheated us out of everything. When are Americamns going to put a stop to this and turn things around? Our window of opportunity is running out as to what we can do and how we can do it.

    • 117 Renee January 10, 2012 at 2:50 pm

      Hi Kate,(waving here) FYI, that story was posted before our corrections…That story although on topic is dated 2006. Miri has corrected the info with the story date.
      So Jane…we have been sleeping ALOT !

    • 118 Jan January 10, 2012 at 3:16 pm

      I demand drug testing for Congress/Senate/White house and all their idiots on the payroll

      • 119 heather January 10, 2012 at 9:43 pm

        ditto–i think thats where all the poppies are going when brought in from afganastan—then turned into coke and the govt workers are strung out—all of them.

  32. 126 Quantum Leap January 10, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    Please donate frequent flyer miles or cash for lodging and flights for Dr Orly Taitz.

    I’m donating my frequent flyer miles. ‘I may just donate for meals if she gets enough of miles. She has to fly from GA to HI and bring others with her.

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30128

    God bless this woman. Among the talents He’s given her has to be “TENACITY” and “loyalty to a cause”. She has withstood withering ridicule, corrupt court action, and threats to herself and her family. Dr. Orly Taitz is the bane of the Obamabots (and establishment ruling class) existence, an ever-present threat to the lies they’ve constructed to protect Obama’s true identity and history. Together with a brave and equally tenacious cadre of patriots, Orly soldiers on to pierce the veil of deceit that is Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama, the usurper in the White House.-Andrea Shea King

  33. 127 no-nonsense-nancy January 10, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    A good article on ineligibility.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter201.htm

  34. 128 cedartree January 10, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    Dr Kate, you should not leave if only to maintain a contact situation and post open threads, we keep eachother updated too.

    In the mail, I just got this required-by-law “agricultural survey” when all I have is a big yard. WTF? Why are they curious if I own a chicken? Which I don’t. Goddamn.

  35. 139 cedartree January 10, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    There are two types of US Citizen, A and B, per SCOTUS.
    Article I says Congress can be either type of US Citizen, A or B.
    Article II says POTUS must only be type B, thus not type A.
    Thus anyone who is type A cannot be type B and vice versa; they are mutually exclusive terms.

    Type A=naturalized by statute citizens, which are already on the books
    Type B=natural born citizens, which is the only remaining possible permutation (2 US Citizen parents born on US soil)

    • 140 cedartree January 10, 2012 at 6:32 pm

      So the point is, that the laws are already there right there in front of our eyes, defining what IS a natural born citizen.

      For indeed, the laws define who is a naturalized by statute citizen, none of who can be a natural born citizen per the US Constitutions (A1 vs A2).

      Naturalized by statute citizens include 0 or 1 parents born anywhere or 2 US citizen parents born abroad.

      There is only one solo uno permuation left.

      • 141 Tenacity January 10, 2012 at 8:24 pm

        Well you are right that there are 2 types of citizens, but wrong in what they are. There are citizens at birth and citizens after birth (naturalized).

        Please provide hard evidence, quotes and links and stop pushing misinformation please. I have read Apuzzo and he has not said what you are saying. I have read the law and the law does not say what you are saying. Misinformation hurts our cause so please stop.

        • 142 cedartree January 10, 2012 at 8:42 pm

          Tenacity, I believe your purpose is to obfuscate what is obvious.

          You don’t even make mathematical logical sense and what you’re saying is already is the established Obot bunk.
          Here’s your bogus argument…there are 2 types of US Citizens “Citizens at Birth” (CABs) and Immigrants who take the oath (OATHs).
          So per the Constitution, all CABs and OATHs can be in Congress in Article I but only CABs can be natural born citizens or POTUS in Article II. So therefore your bogus argument says all CABs are NBCs. Bullshit!
          The law is very clear: No US Code 1401 CABs are NBCs, which is obvious since USC1401 never says they are. The term NBC is never mentioned once in the statutory laws.
          So, ten, sorry but you’re deliberately trying to obfuscate and conflate a very simple set-up that’s ALREADY IN THE STATUTES.

          All naturalized citizens are citizens by STATUTE; all NBCs are citizens by NATURE (which is obvious since with 2 US Citizen parents, born on US soil, the child has no choice).

          You’re called out Ten, on this Obot bunk argument that’s already been muted.

          • 143 drkate January 10, 2012 at 8:51 pm

            hang on there Cedar. You are not quoting the information properly and not providing links. This is bordering on misinformation. I agree that we shouldn’t be calling eachother obots here, but this is not the interpretation nor language that I understand.

            By the way, there are 5 types of citizenship cited in the constitution. Not two.

            I suggest you drop this line of thought for now, or take it off line via email where you can argue about it all you want.

            WE are done here, we’ve exhausted this discussion in various posts, and the authority is Mario Apuzzo. Quote him accurately or acknowledge this is your reading of the law. If you want any further stuff on this I suggest you communicate directly with Mario Apuzzo.

            • 144 cedartree January 10, 2012 at 9:04 pm

              NBCs are NOT in any statutes and nobody can prove that wrong. So no statutory citizen is a NBC.

              • 145 Tenacity January 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm

                NBC = by no other means. Do you see any statutes in that? Thick!

                Also, this is not my blog but I do not tolerate anyone using the Lords name in vain. That more than anything else shows me your true colors.

                • 146 Troy January 10, 2012 at 10:04 pm

                  I agree with you on that one, Terry….I’ll be the first to admit that I curse like a drunken sailor with a bad attitutde, but no one will ever see me using the Lord’s name in vain in one of my comments….It’s much too offensive.

                  There is a difference in what cedar wrote above and someone making a statement such as: “Jeffery Dahmer is a serial killer and is probably God damned.” – meaning damned by God, although most would agree that God doesn’t damn anyone, no matter how bad they are.

                • 147 slcraignbc January 11, 2012 at 7:33 am

                  Well, you are only correct when you accept that only the Laws emanating from the promulgated Acts of Congress are “Statutes”, however, in Marbury v. Madison () 100 U.S. 1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO.html it was held that the Constitution, its-self, is “Statutory” in its construction and whether the provisions and obligations are reiterated in some other form or not the Supremacy Clause makes it clear that the provisions and obligations therein are the LAW and Statutory.

                  Taking Article II Section I Clause V as an example and reading it in its Statutory form it is an “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” upon the Executive Branch and that the POTUS, (and V-POTUS per the 11th Amdmnt), must be a Statutory “natural born Citizen”.

                  Some would argue a distinction identifying one as “Constitutional” and the other as “Statutory” attempting homage to the “source”, but one only need to return to the Supremacy Clause and accept that the distinction is that the Statutory language of the Constitution are the “Statutes of the 1st instant”.

                  • 148 Tenacity January 11, 2012 at 11:14 am

                    slc, I understand your point. However, like our unalienable rights, natural born was not granted, created or codified by the constitution. It is the “natural” and pure form of citizenship where there is no doubt…by soil and by blood with no divided allegiance.

                    • 149 slcraignbc January 11, 2012 at 1:09 pm

                      I understand the reluctance to reconcile the two, i.e.; Our inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator with the FACT that those Rights, benefits, privleges, immunities and obligations are CODIFIED within the Statutory Construction of the Constitution and those Rights are/may be extended as expressed in the Bill of Rights 10th Amendment when it says that those things not mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the States and to the People.

                      Natural Law “informed” the nature of the Constitution, but once adopted, the Constitution became the Supreme Law of the Land.

                      That there is now a question as to the correct Constitutional definition of natural born Citizen is at once a “Citizenship and Political question” by the nature of its usage within the Constitution.

                      The nature of our legal system puts those questions in a difficult class of questions to have answered.

                      I spent 2 years trying to get a Federal Department or Court to “Certify and/or otherwise acknowledge” that I am a natural born Citizen by virtue of my specific birth circumstances. The best they would/could do is to acknowledge that I am a “native-born U.S. Citizen”, and then said I did not have “standing” and that they did not have “Jurisdiction” to answer the Question, insofar as Citizenship is concerned and that the transient Political Question aspects are severed from ‘judicial review” by the Political Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

                      That is why all of these State Challenges are the best hope of getting the “QUESTIONS” to the SCOTUS with a Bona Fide Petition asking if the Minor v Opinion is applicable to the nature of the NBC exclusionary provision of Article II Section I Clause V.

    • 150 Troy January 10, 2012 at 9:40 pm

      A person born here of one U.S. citizen parent is not a “naturalized” citizen….They are a native born citizen, which is different from a natural born citizen.

      Yes, they are a citizen by statute, but they are not naturalized…..Some citizens by statute are naturalized and some are not…..Most naturalized citizens are those that began their lives in another country and then moved here and became citizens.

      • 151 Troy January 10, 2012 at 9:43 pm

        ALL naturalized citizens are citizens by statute, but NOT ALL citizens by statute are naturalized citizens.

      • 152 slcraignbc January 11, 2012 at 8:33 am

        Well, not to argue but rather to extend the discussion it is instructive to look at 2 separate but connected Acts of Congress.

        1st, the 1790 “an Act to make an uniform Rule on naturalization” and 2nd, the 14th Amendment.

        Although many of the Acts of Congress and “interpretations” of those Acts and of the Constitution bring about unintended consequences, most often, when read in plain language and acknowledgment of the “original intent”, the unintended consequences are exposed as errors of interpretation.

        The 1790 ACT, when reading the plain language of the Title, establishes ‘an uniform Rule”, and that being “Jus Sanguinis”, or, in common nomenclature, “birthright citizenship”. Although the Act does not say so in “declaratory words” the “laws” emanating from the “Rule” does.

        2nd, the “original intent” of the 14th was to provide “Citizenship” to a class of “persons” that were denied that benefit by the Constitution, (see Scott v Sanford). There were a number of Laws passed by the Congress leading up to the 13th Amendment attempting to affect that goal, but it became apparent that only a ‘Declaratory Statement” within an Amendment could/would establish that effect, so the “Collective naturalization language” was debated and distilled to, “…all persons born or naturalized …within the jurisdiction….are citizens…”.

        Now, it becomes difficult to argue against the 14th being a “collective naturalization provision” without denying the “uniform Rule” of jus sanguinis of the 1790 Act. Also, it becomes difficult to assert the ‘birthright” of citizens giving birth abroad when you limit the “jurisdiction” of the Constitutional provisions to the territorial limits of the United States.

        Further, the jus sanguinis Rule becomes even more obvious when you distill the Title 8 Codes and come to realize that the ONLY beneficiaries of the “Collective naturalization provision” of the Declaratory “Born within the Jurisdiction” interpretation, is to “make” citizens of those who would otherwise have no claim to the benefit, jus sanguinis, whether they are within the ‘jurisdiction’ legally or otherwise.

        • 153 drkate January 11, 2012 at 10:49 am

          The 1790 act was amended and replaced in 1791…per Apuzzo…so this act is controlling

          • 154 slcraignbc January 11, 2012 at 12:47 pm

            drkate;

            The 1790 Act was actually ‘repealed’ by the 3rd Session of Congress in 1795.

            It could be argued that they realized they did not have the authority to ‘abridge, enlarge or otherwise modify’ a provision within the Articles of the Executive Branch and repealed for that reason, but, as of yet, I have found no debates to support that premise.

            Regardless of why they ‘repealed’ the ‘foreign born NBC provision’ and replaced it with ‘foreign born Citizen’ it does not negate the premise that the ‘uniform Rule’ established was the doctrine of jus sanguinis, the birthright inheritability of a citizen parents citizenship.

            When you read the words closely and consider the implication it becomes self-evident; “a child born of Citizen Parents while abroad shall be “CONSIDERED” an NBC…”(sic)…….you could add “AS IF” behind the word CONSIDERED without changing the implication. It would be unreasonable to ‘consider” one set of circumstances being “AS IF” if the ‘source circumstances’ were of an entirely different set of circumstances. The rational mind would conclude that the ONLY circumstance that separates the two is the “place” of birth”.

            So, stepping back it is easy to see that the 1795 repeal simply affirmed that ‘jus soli’ was one of the integral aspects of the nature of an NBC’s set of circumstances and that a ‘foreign born’ child of EVEN two citizen parents could not be CONSIDERED as being an NBC, notwithstanding the farcical SR511 that claims J.S. McCain to be one based on the repealed 1790 Acts set of circumstances.

  36. 155 Quantum Leap January 10, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    Now they are calling the primary for Romney at 36% and Ron Paul in second at 25%. LIARS. It’s more like Paul at 36% and Romney at 25%. Romney never gets (polls) past 25% in this election and in 2008. He just has no new supporters. Liars.
    DEMs want Romney cause he’s easy to beat. NH is not that hot for Romney and tend NOT to pick front runners. If it were closer I could believe it but 36%. Not in my lifetime.

    (When things pick up at work I won’t be posting as much-so sorry that I’m playing catch up)

  37. 158 heather January 10, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    http://www.krmg.com/ap/ap/religion/appeals-ct-upholds-stay-of-okla-ban-on-islamic-law/nGKCc/

    this is the first i have seen since we voted in 11-10 and over 70% voted against sharia law and now all this time this liberal judge finally heard it. believe me this will not be the end of this–okies are conservative and when this finally gets out and goes viral, there will be hell to pay.

    i will definitely be sending an email to AG Pruit.
    this makes me want to puke.

  38. 160 heather January 10, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/farmers-sue-jon-corzine-missing-millions/story?id=15321298

    I hope the people who lost their entire savings and investments sue the pants of of corzine and take all of his money since his was stole from goldman sachs and NJ property taxes. hmmm–karma may it strike each one of them.

    • 161 Jan January 10, 2012 at 10:49 pm

      They also confiscated the gold bullion that was being stored by their clients that was paid for and had their names imprinted on the bars.
      Maybe we can send Corzine, obat, and a few more to jail on this one.
      I’m sure it was because obat needed more money for his campaign.

      Promises made, promises paid

  39. 163 Troy January 10, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    Dr. Kate, this blog of yours is very important….I’m not sure if you truly realize that or not….This blog is among a small handful of other blogs that will serve as a true testament of our current times under the non leadership of an illegal imposter / usurper in our White House….This blog has been and is a truthful source of information regarding that fact….It is important for posterity and will serve as a future reference for truth seekers, possibly long after we’re all gone….Years from now, people will need to know that there were those of us who were diligent in the fight for our country against the enemies within our own government….Maybe you should also consider writing a book for the sake of posterity….The name of this blog would also make an excellent title for a book. :)

  40. 165 Troy January 10, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    The Three Legs of the Natural Born Citizen Demand Obama
    FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
    by Cody Robert Judy, ©2012
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/09/the-three-legs-of-the-natural-born-citizen-demand-obama/

  41. 166 Troy January 10, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    ‘US builds hospitals in Georgia, readies for war with Iran’
    http://rt.com/politics/us-georgia-iran-war-441/

  42. 167 no-nonsense-nancy January 10, 2012 at 11:33 pm

    Kate, we here value your teaching and guidence and a place to meet and share information and thoughts. I can’t express this as elagently as Troy just did but my sentaments are the same. We need you to continue with this blog! I spend most of my time here and it seems that there are not many sites left that I go to that I get much information from.

  43. 168 stopmar shalaw (@stuckntwit) January 11, 2012 at 1:12 am

    Me too! I am not great at expressing myself and do not post often- but I have learned so much from reading your posts. I doubt that I am the only one who is a reader and learner here yet not much of a poster.
    So I hope you realize Dr Kate, that this is a place to get valuable information. I cannot believe what is really going on and sometimes I just read information here for some reality. Also, it is somewhat of a comfort to be familiar with your names read your comments. I am very concerned about not doing any preparation such as food or water- we are in a urban area outside of Detroit but closer to Ann Arbor. I have a son with special needs and worry so much about his medical needs if supplies are cut off. My husband has very little interest in hearing about any of this. I read about people buying missle silos and making them into underground homes. I would like to find a place like that for my son and I! ok there you see I have a gift of fantacy!! Anybody here buying that dried food? It’s too expensive for me to buy! Thank you all for reading and please stick around awhile. I need the company! and information!!!

  44. 169 Jan January 11, 2012 at 1:27 am

    Dear Lord, please eliminate the UN from our lives. Read the article and all the garbage obat has been pulling falls right in line with the UN and most of the items on their wish list are now complete.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom208.htm

  45. 170 jane January 11, 2012 at 4:34 am

    VERY interesting post by someone on another site! about “O’s” name and meaning……..never thought of this, did you?

    Addressed to all liberal Democratic Demonic voters!

    The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941, was coded with the words Toro, Toro, Toro, meaning complete surprise attack, starting WWII, and its carnage.

    You damn fool’s! What is Obama’s coded name? It is Barry Soetoro not Barack H. Obama II, of Indonesia, a predominate Muslum Country.

    They and he plan to completely destroy the United States of America, with your vote. SOE is a State Owned Enterprise of mind, body and soul, you pathetic fools.

    When your history is rewritten someday, Sodom and Camorra will look like the flue of 1918 that claimed 100 million victims, young and old around the world.

    A bedtime fairy tale from a bunker deep under this earth called Hell on Earth, by Obama.

  46. 171 Stock January 11, 2012 at 6:50 am

    Miracles occur through the power of prayer.

  47. 172 heather January 11, 2012 at 8:34 am

    I just called AG Scott Pruitt’s office and told them that this out of state muslim has no right to sue OK to amend our vote on #755 question..sharia law. 70% of the people voted to oppose sharia law in our courts and the people spoke and no judge has the right to overturn our vote. Our US constitution dictates our US laws not sharia.

    Pruitt vowed to uphold our laws and took the oath to do so, and we the people will MAKE him stand against all enemies foreign and domestic. This law is both in my book–foreign and domestic, since there are so many muslims living in the US. So if they don’t like our laws, then go back to your own country where they butcher people for looking crosseyed at someone, or a woman raped gets stoned to death or beheaded. Get a clue people. Stand up for our country. This is not political correctness, this is the law!

  48. 174 Tiger 7 January 11, 2012 at 9:02 am

    I wholeheartedly agree with Troy—DrKate should document the tremendous efforts she and others have put forth for the salvation of our wonderful country. When this nightmare is over–and it will be–there will be a great number of books hit the market, but none could cover the whole spectrum of topics and factors as completely as an effort by DrKate. She has both the information and the talent to do a great job.

    Go Girl !!!

  49. 175 GORDO January 11, 2012 at 10:45 am

    “On conspiracies”

    “For four years now, Team Obama, the ObamaMedia and Obots have argued that Birthers, that evil, racist fringe group, have engaged in racist conspiracy theories because Barack Obama is black.

    1. What are the Birthers hiding? Answer: nothing.

    2. What is Obama hiding. Answer: everything!

    What follows is Team Obama’s conspiracy, documented.”

    http://theobamafile.websitetoolbox.com/post/On-conspiracies-5657393

  50. 176 no-nonsense-nancy January 11, 2012 at 11:19 am

    Michelle Obama is outraged that Jodie Konas, in her new book on the Obamas, describes her as an angry black woman (which she is). She also denies thlat she advises her husband on national matters, but at the same time told ABC that she ‘likes her job’. JOB, you say? Just who is it that has the job in which We The People are the bosses? What ‘job’ does Michelle Obama have?

    All, of course, just another big distraction from the destruction being done to the USA.

    http://news.yahoo.com/mrs-obama-her-angry-black-woman-image-150915657.html

    • 177 heather January 11, 2012 at 11:56 am

      Yeah just what job does she have—-I know the answer to that–spending our money on all of her vacas!

      Rush is saying that barry was designed to destroy America completely and that he has to go.

      Matter a fact—thats all he says now on a daily basis.

      • 178 no-nonsense-nancy January 11, 2012 at 1:55 pm

        Why wasn’t he saying it in ’07 and ’08?

        • 179 heather January 11, 2012 at 3:04 pm

          he did–remember he was saying he hopes barry fails? he just didn’t devote his entire show to it like he has been over the past 6 months or so. I know alot of people don’t like Rush, and at times I get so annoyed with him, but he is NOT like the rest of the talk radio guys, Rush is Rush and he has always hated barry.

          A few months ago he was pushing rubio for potus and I emailed him and told him to STOP he was not eligible — he was not a NBC and if he continued to push rubio and he gets elected then we will never be able to kill the dirty bills that barry wrote and it would set a precedence that anyone from anywhere can be potus. He has NOT spoken a word of rubio since. So he must read his emails/or have someone else read them, because he has never spoken it again.

  51. 180 Troy January 11, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Matter a fact—thats all he says now on a daily basis.
    +++++++++++++
    Whats taken him so long?….Most all of us have known that from day one.

    You’re a day late and a dollar short there fat boy – um, I mean El Rushbo!

    Had you done your damned job, maybe the usurper would be gone already….Had you informed you’re brain dead listeners that Barry is ineligible to hold office then he would have definitely been gone by now…..Hell, Rushbo, one could say that you, through negligence and cowardliness are responsible for the destruction of our country….So, shut your fat blowhole, you turd!!!

    • 181 Tenacity January 11, 2012 at 12:31 pm

      Agreed Troy. The same can be said for the other so-called conservative pundits…Hannity, Hewitt, Savage, Beck & Levin to name a few. Notice I would not honor the likes of O’Reilly by even calling him “so-called”. The only one that has any of my respect at this point is Andrew Napolitano. I believe he has pushed the envelope as far as he could and keep his job.

      • 182 Tenacity January 11, 2012 at 12:42 pm

        Here is a perfect example of how they waste our time:
        http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/01/11/ouch-sean-hannity-rips-rick-perry-compares-him-to-occupy-protesters/
        I love this comment at that link:
        Jimbo
        January 11, 2012 at 4:16 pm

        While Perry & Gingrich rip Romney on Bain Capital from a “lefty perspective” Ron Paul has said the criticism has no merit and is misplaced.
        Tells you something about the consistency and intellectual honesty of Ron Paul and it tells you something about the shameless demagoguery of Perry & Gingrich.
        Who is the real conservative alternative to Mitt Romney?

        Ron Paul, that’s who!

        • 183 Tenacity January 11, 2012 at 12:49 pm

          Here’s another one worth quoting, right after Jimbo’s above:
          n8 January 11, 2012 at 5:32 pm

          Every now and then I turn it to msnbc just to get a glimpse of pathological lying. Before last night Romney was spoken of rather well. Last night Maddow brought up Romney avoiding Vietnam by studying in France. She also pointed out that his sons have not served in the military. Schultz asked if Romney had money hidden offshore. O’Donnell said European Socialism does things better than American Socialism and wondered aloud if Romney would admit that good things can come from places other than America.

          Romney supporters have no idea what their supposedly clean candidate is up against. This “Romney is the only electable candidate” stuff is nothing but a trap. The leftist media has been helping Mitt so far but they are signaling that it is now time to turn it up….evidenced by Donna Brazille letting the cat out the bag Saturday night after the debate when she said O bama definitely wants to face Romney. And as all of her “colleagues” gasped in disbelief, she shed a cute little wink as if to say “Game on”.

          It’s not too late. South Carolinians need to stand up and stand up now. We cannot have Mitt as our nominee.

        • 184 heather January 11, 2012 at 12:54 pm

          I don’t even fox fox anymore–can’t stomach that arrogant, egotistic O’R and I have a major dislike for Hannity. All he does is whine and his voice rattles my nerves.

          The judge is the only honest one and yep they have all been warned about keeping their jobs, but I am sure the Judge doesnt really need to work. He probably has a great pension. Regardless though, everyone needs to work to keep their brains activated. IMO

    • 185 heather January 11, 2012 at 1:04 pm

      I know, I know, but Rush has been on his back all this time, just not about the eligibility issue. What I want to know is, what the heck has barry threatened everyone with to keep their mouths shut. It must be huge, because I have a big mouth and have a real hard time keeping a secret and a threat is a secret in my book.

      There are days when I can listen to Rush and days when I have had enough of all of them, but I have to give the devil his do. He rides barry daily on as much as he is allowed.

      • 186 Tenacity January 11, 2012 at 3:05 pm

        “What I want to know is, what the heck has barry threatened everyone with to keep their mouths shut.”
        ******************************************************
        Barry is just one of the puppets. They start with unjust enrichment. These pundits are way overpaid and if you think they can jump ship to a different high paying job, think again…blackballed. If a talking head gets out of line, they will be threatened with anything and everything. They will set them up with an affair or threaten their families. This is true of politicians and judges as well. Unless you have experienced this level of duress, I wouldn’t be too quick to judge. Look at how many whistle blowers, investigators and potential whistle blowers have died or fled the country. I couldn’t/wouldn’t live under that duress. I have too much of my dad in me. He always said if someone needs the shirt off your back, give it to them. If they try to steal it, burn it first.

  52. 187 Tenacity January 11, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    Ditto Troy.
    Dr. Kate, you are my good friend. To me, that means we are past second base in our relationship. This is true of others here as well (i.e.: Troy, heather, Jan, NNN, QL and others). We have experienced friction (sliding into 2nd base) and have found a spirit of forgiveness that allows us to take risks with one another trusting that our friendship will survive the rough times. I believe this level of honest exploration and discovery is one of the reasons this blog is so important. There is an open search for truth coupled with people who have the ability to get outside of themselves. You, Kate, have facilitated that environment. Yes, you can have your hot buttons pushed and react, as do we all, but you bounce back with a genuine caring. As you can see from the comments above, there is a sense of belonging here. Even more than all the great information posted here, that is the backbone of this blog.

  53. 190 jrCarolinas January 11, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    Kate – For some reason I seem to be posting threads over at Heyoka Patriots that somehow seem to address things that take place. While my thread was done the day before your comment about leaving, I feel these few words in this thread are for you. Endure Until The End
    http://heyokapatriots.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/endure-until-the-end/

    You do a fantastic job and while I may not post very often I do read here everyday. I think Troy has given you a wonderful gift by suggesting you put all this in a book for posterity. I would definitely be one of the first to buy it.

    So for what it is worth, go outside and scream your head off, take a deep breath and stay the course. You are needed and loved by so many.

  54. 191 Quantum Leap January 11, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Yeah. Dk should write a book. If not for our crying an belly-aching who knows how much more the creep(s) would have gotten away with in their take over. I bet Chem trails would not be a common household word like it is now. Word of mouth is the best way to get the news out there. I think the search for guest blog writers should be re-explored so Dk can have a break.

    How many here have the suspicon that RP got 36% and Mitt got 25%? I have a distinct feeling that they flipped the numbers. Why? Research how Mitt NEVER got or gets more than 25% support in polls and how he has hit a ceiling of support while RP continues to get more and more support. Besides, the news said RP was in first place then they retracted so they could punk the vote. How could the live free or die state not have more than 25% support for the freedon fighter RP?

    I’m sick of them taking over our voting process. No way Mitt got 36% of the vote. No way. NH does not like front runners.

    I bet RP knows they flipped the numbers. Exit polls tell the story. Over a 10 point difference in favor of Mitt suggests some real cheating. Again, Mitt can’t and never has gotten more than 25% of the vote in any election from any year. He has topped out in his support. Nobody wants a weak phoney. We already have that in the WH. AND Mitt DID make his money off the backs of the poor and middle class as he was employed on wall street after being Gov of Mass. He’s a liberal lefty in diquise. He’s no different than the common mass lib.

    • 192 heather January 11, 2012 at 1:10 pm

      QL—I am right with you–RP was too ahead to fall into 2nd place. The media is pushing romney like they did barry and thats where the numbers came from. they were made up……..i believe nothing they say. RP has too many followers to come in 2nd.

      Let the facts speak for themselves, romney is another rino—barry and we dont want him period. Its our choice not the medias. We have to push RP everywhere and make the people ignore this lying media.

      I know everyone is busy with their everyday lives and jobs, but without RP as potus we wont have lives and jobs—–simple as that.

      • 193 heather January 11, 2012 at 8:23 pm

        I talked with people today back on the east coast–the lib section of the country and they all hate romney and are pushing for RP–that tells me I am right with the media pushing for romney because they got their orders from the top. So QL in essence RP won NH.

    • 194 Jan January 11, 2012 at 4:19 pm

      Voter fraud in NH

      MANCHESTER, N.H. — Video footage provided exclusively to The Daily Caller shows election workers in New Hampshire giving out ballots in the names of [...]

      You may view the latest post at
      http://obamaballotchallenge.com/fraud-in-new-hampshire-primary

  55. 195 Quantum Leap January 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    Sorry for my typos. When that happens I’m not wearing my reading glasses. sigh.

  56. 196 heather January 11, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    The people of the world are begging for RP! Just read some of the comments from these articles. They don’t want romney anymore than we do.

  57. 197 Tenacity January 11, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    Our first guest on Walls In Our Minds this week is Karen Budd-Falen.

  58. 200 no-nonsense-nancy January 11, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    This may be why Mittens got such a high percentage. No ID required for voting in NH. Video made of ‘dead’ people voting.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/

  59. 202 Stock January 11, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Forgot to mention this- I was at our T-pty meeting Monday night-we had Ron Paul surrogates and local activists-the other candidates didnt send anyone-they were very enthusiastic, very knowledgeable and responded to questions from the audience with well reasoned responses. The difference between RP and the others is really clear-and this is what gets his opponents fur flying-because they dont get it-RP relies on “principles” (what does the Constitution allow) while the others are all arguing “issues” which when argued in isolation and have no boundaries other than what is popular or is supported by the most contribution money.


Comments are currently closed.



January 2012
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

PROTECT OUR LIBERTY HERE!

Get Your Copy at drkatesview@gmail.com

Blog Archive

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!

Donate to DrKatesView!

Donate Now!

Since 8/15/09

  • 1,644,702 views

Listen to drkate’s Revolution Radio

RSS The Post & Email

  • 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
Site Build It!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 605 other followers