Bobby Jindal Rove

©2011 drkate

I was wondering who was going to be the first ineligible republican to throw out his birth certificate under the cover of Soetoro/Obama, and sure enough the most ineligible of them all did so-Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana.

At birth Jindal had dual allegiance: was a citizen of India and the United States because his parents were not American citizens at his birth.  Birth on U.S. soil entitled him to Fourteenth Amendment citizenship.  Thus the status of his citizenship at birth was alienable and divided.  He may be a great American citizen and patriot, but can never be a natural born citizen, and thus can never ‘grow up to be the President of the United States’.

shuckin' n jivin'--even that is faked

By his release of it now, we already know what kind of man Bobby Jindal is: an opportunist who will use any political moment, or any crisis, to his advantage.  It is a way to ‘slip in unnoticed‘ in the context of too much “news”.  This also masks Jindal’s actions regarding the protection of the Louisiana coast after the BP spill, when he threatened to have the state take over the protection from the Obama administration and then suddenly backed down.  Did Soetoro/Obama threaten him or pay him off?  At the expense of his state?

The Rove bastardization  is to manipulate an obviously ineligible candidate to throw out his birth certificate (read: focus on birth place); to have that candidate be a person of color and immigrant (read: race card opportunities); and to divert attention away from both Obama and Romney, who both have parental citizenship foreign allegiance problems.  In other words, to continue the assault on Article II of the Constitution.

We regular Americans are on to you boys.

Unalienable and Undivided Allegiance to the United States of America is the singular quality that all natural born American citizens have.

Jindal doesn’t make the cut.


107 Responses to “Bobby Jindal Rove”

  1. 1 thinkwell May 7, 2011 at 11:11 am


    by Thinkwell

    Does Obama have sole allegiance to the United States with a questionable birthplace, British-citizen father, and probable Indonesian adoption?

    (May 2, 2011) — The Presidency holds a unique place among the three branches of government (executive — legislative — judicial) in that a single individual is entrusted with discretionary power over all our nation’s military might. We the People have a right to require that such a position of awesome trust and power be only given over to one of our very own, one who is most naturally inclined to have the nation’s best interest at heart — a 100 percent, red-blooded all-American.

    Blood and Dirt

    A natural born Citizen is one born to citizen parents and upon native soil. Only when one is born pure of native blood and dirt does exclusive citizenship flow naturally.

    The intended effect of the natural born Citizen requirement is twofold:

    1) to ensure that our Commander-in-Chief be born and raised with exclusive dedication and allegiance to the USA; and

    2) to ensure that no other country have any legitimate claim of fealty or duty from our CiC under any circumstance.

    Note that we require that naturalized-as-an-adult citizens must first officially renounce any other citizenship and then freely swear an oath of sole allegiance to the USA, thereby breaking all bonds to any other country. Our government does not recognize dual citizenship for any such naturalized citizen. Their freely-sworn exclusive loyalty is also why they may produce and raise children who then themselves are natural born Citizens.

    However, US-government-recognized dual citizens may occur by birth and apparently in some cases by the free choice of a former exclusively American citizen (something that should never be allowed, in my opinion – either you are in or you are out). This unwise loophole leads to a gray area with regard to natural born Citizenship where citizens may be born on native soil, but to parents, one or both of whom may be dual citizens. Such children clearly may be born and raised with divided allegiance (in fact, quite plausibly with a stronger loyalty to their “other” country, especially if they are predominantly raised in the other country — for example, a situation quite likely for the children of two “citizens” who themselves were born as anchor babies).

    That these children could ever be classified as natural born Citizens is an anathema to the Constitution, the security and protection of our country and the intent of the Founders. I believe this debased sort of hybrid “natural born Citizen” was neither possible nor ever envisioned as being possible in the time of the Founders, which is why it may not have been directly addressed. But one only need look to the guidance of the clearly expressed intent to protect the nation from foreign interest and influence to see that such a mixed classification of “natural born Citizen” should never be allowed.

    Yet, today we suffer under a usurper president whose citizenship does not even rise to this questionable hybrid standard. Obama is a man whose father never was himself a citizen (nor even a permanent resident) of this country. Obama is a man who was bred (and probably born) under the flag of an alien land. His life story is more jumbled than a fresh load of wash at the end of the spin cycle (in fact, his presidency is one big spin cycle). Is it no wonder that he is a self-proclaimed citizen of the world?

    That our once great nation would ever let such a man become its Commander-in-Chief is a disgrace to us all. May we have the courage not to grant this fraud the legitimacy of a full term and have the resolve not only to remove him, but serve him with the full and fair course of justice that his crime demands. (Such action would also serve as a much needed “inspiration” to the other scoundrels in Washington.)

    As President Thomas Jefferson famously said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

  2. 3 thinkwell May 7, 2011 at 11:39 am

    Unfortunately for Bobby Jindal his nbC status is a borderline case, but one in which he clearly is on the wrong side of the border, for neither of his parents were yet U.S. citizens when he was born.

    In his case this is truly unfortunate because his parents were eager to come here and eager to become citizens as soon as possible, so even though Bobby Jindal wasn’t born as a “natural born Citizen”, he most likely was raised as one (within a family with freely given sole loyalty to America). He clearly was raised to love America by parents who were happy and eager to be Americans.

    But the natural born Citizen requirement is not about Bobby Jindal’s rights or his particular situation, no matter how agonizingly close he comes to meeting the requirements. No, the natural born Citizen requirement is about protecting the nation against possible alien usurpation, thus the rule must be hard-and-fast even if it means a very sympathetic case such as Bobby Jindal’s ends up getting rejected now and then.

    • 4 JanH May 7, 2011 at 7:21 pm

      Unfortunately for Bobby Jindal his nbC status is a borderline case, but one in which he clearly is on the wrong side of the border, for neither of his parents were yet U.S. citizens when he was born.

      In his case this is truly unfortunate because his parents were eager to come here and eager to become citizens as soon as possible, so even though Bobby Jindal wasn’t born as a “natural born Citizen”, he most likely was raised as one (within a family with freely given sole loyalty to America). He clearly was raised to love America by parents who were happy and eager to be Americans.

      I suspect this is largely the point.

      I believe it is just this sentiment this move is designed to foster.

      Here is my theory. The whole thing here is not really about Obama. It is about Article II.

      This move with Jindal is geared to move the sympathies of the people away from adherence to Article II. TPTB want public sentiment moved away from anything and everything that is anti globalist and that, I think, is the whole point of all of this. For us to insist that we have only a natural born citizen-one of us-to govern our nation is in direct defiance of globalist thought and so must be done away with. I am just waiting for the accusations of arrogance and elitism to be lodged against Constitutionalists, especially those who hold strongly to Article II.

      And because Jindal’s case is sympathetic, they want holding on to Article II to hurt, hoping we will decide it isn’t really worth it, nor is it necessary anymore. I mean, look what a good guy Jindal is! He’s a fine American! Who cares that he’s not natural born? Does that really matter anymore anyway? Etc….

      They want Americans to feel the disparity between a flesh and blood person whom we like and respect and a cold, harsh, impersonal law (and we’ll throw in “antiquated” while we’re at it) which is now costing us emotional pain to continue to uphold. In our sympathy for the flesh and blood person we would then begin to resent Article II.

      I am sure this is what is going on on at least some level. Somebody somewhere really really wants America to be governed by foreigners and is pushing for it for the sake of the NWO.

  3. 5 thinkwell May 7, 2011 at 11:59 am

    Before throwing stones at Bobby Jindal for trying to ride in on Obama-fraud’s usurpation coattails, I would want to be very sure of understanding Bobby Jindal’s own, actual statements rather than some obot reporter’s spin on what Jindal might have said.

    It is laudable that he presented his legitimate birth certificate, but as Dr. Kate notes, that is not enough. I am willing to give him a little more time to clearly state (if he hasn’t already) that his parents were not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and either that he understands that that makes him ineligible to be President and therefore he will not run, or that he feels this is an unsettled questioned for which he is presenting all the pertinent facts so that it may be answered before the campaign season starts in earnest.

    That is what an honest, upstanding American would do. We shall see.

  4. 8 thinkwell May 7, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Not sure what a “dothead” is, but I’m pretty sure you are crossing over into bigotry.

    Until he prove himself otherwise (which may be happening now), Bobby Jindal is a true American, native born and as good as any other red-blooded American, true patriot or otherwise.

    • 9 charlesmountain May 7, 2011 at 1:08 pm

      I agree with Thinkwell. Until I hear Jindal’s words I will assume this is an indirect way on his part to,
      1.)Show what a legit COLB should look like.
      2.)Proving his ineligibility which will help re-ignite the eligiblity fireworks that are going to start this week in anticipation of Corsi’s book beginning with Trump, who will break his silence on Monday.
      The Countdown to Usurper removal has begun.

      • 10 drkate May 7, 2011 at 2:05 pm

        Well, I must admit I took the negative view…but the timing of this release is once again interesting. Unless Jindal comes out and says something more about this…I will remain on the ‘prove it’ side.

        • 11 Glorygal May 7, 2011 at 5:45 pm

          And here’s one relative to the oil spill. Oh what intricate webs they weave.

        • 12 Tenacity May 7, 2011 at 6:45 pm

          Is anyone taking bets on whether Jindal comes clean on his NOT being a natural-born citizen? I may give some odds, maybe 2 to 1, that he is a politician and not a statesman. That means I’m betting on Kate’s negative view.

          • 13 drkate May 7, 2011 at 6:55 pm

            I’d like to out Rove on this….

            • 14 Tenacity May 7, 2011 at 7:06 pm

              Has anyone ever investigated the money trail on Rove? How many SSNs does he have? What’s his aliases? He’s in the fraud up to his eyebrows and bound to have some bones in the closet.

          • 15 Rick May 7, 2011 at 7:35 pm

            If we don’t get this business settled with Obama the usurper, then we won’t be able to make it binding in future elections for president. The longer this mess with Obama lasts until its final solution, we will face a constitutional crisis that will cause states to secede.

            • 16 Troy May 7, 2011 at 9:57 pm

              I hope Texas leads the charge….The U.S. needs us (Texas) a lot more than we need them!….If we secede, you all will see just how fast our southern border gets secured….Pronto!

              • 17 anonymouse May 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm

                No problem, as the constitution is nullified with a usurper, they can do whatev they want.

                Sovereign nation state of Texas, in fact all states are sovereign nation states.

                No constitution = No union.

                • 18 Paula May 9, 2011 at 12:05 pm

                  Good points Troy, borderraven, and anonymouse. Well put! I wish other Americans would wake up to this fact.

            • 19 borderraven May 8, 2011 at 2:34 pm


              I’ve been saying that to the Obots for months.

              This is not a race issue.

              This is not a political issue.

              This is not a religion issue.

              This is a constitutional issue.

              If we all fail to put the US Constitution above a presidential candidate, then we all fail to preserve our form of government under the constitution.

          • 20 Troy May 7, 2011 at 9:28 pm

            Agreed….Jindal = political opportunist

      • 21 heather May 7, 2011 at 10:44 pm

        Pam and Monica never mention obama sr being kenyan born. the freakn thing is big enough so they can’t say they didnt see it.

        whats with the 2 of them–? are they turning?

    • 22 AttilasDaughter May 7, 2011 at 1:59 pm

      I think he refers to the fact that Indian women have a painted dot between their eyebrows.
      Sometimes people post stuff like this here to discredit Dr. kate’s blog.
      Mostly those Obots then chose names like “patriot” “American eagle” etc.

    • 23 Quantum Leap May 7, 2011 at 3:53 pm


  5. 24 Guesswhat May 7, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    yes, Jindal may be a true America and Patriot

  6. 25 Harry May 7, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    But not eligible to be President of the United States. Please view the following video.

  7. 26 borderraven May 7, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Jindal was born in 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to parents who had just moved there from India to attend graduate school.

    It can probably be assumed that his parent were in the United States on student visas and were not at the time U.S. Citizens. If you believe both parents must be U.S. Citizens at the time of the child’s birth for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen, then Bobby Jindal has a problem. Under this definition, he would not be a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore, under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, he would not be eligible to be President of the United States. This is why it is imperative that Congress or the United States Supreme Court finally make a decision and define for the purposes of Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution clarification of the clause as to what it definitively means to be a Natural Born Citizen.

    As a candidate in the presidential election, Donald Trump, having standing, could file suit in the US District Court to resolve the issue.

    • 27 thinkwell May 7, 2011 at 1:35 pm

      I agree with all you wrote (Jindal is NOT a nbC). The part about Trump is especially a good idea. So, how can we get him to do it (or a least know that he could)?

      • 28 drkate May 7, 2011 at 4:03 pm

        This could be the trap that is being set–please see my article on why release a fake…Imagine Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor refusing to recuse themselves. Obama gets a pass for the last three years, and he gets to run again, and article II is amended by fiat…not sound judicial reasoning.

  8. 29 Philo-Publius May 7, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Obama’s birth status — comparing Xs and Os

    n February of 1941, Malcolm Little moved to the Boston suburb of Roxbury to live with his half-sister, Ella Little Collins. Interestingly, another resident of Roxbury at that time was a young man named Louis Eugene Walcott. Both Ella Little and Louis Walcott lost their fathers. Did these common factors bring them together at some point? The question is important, because the young Mr. Walcott would later become known as Louis Farrakhan.

    Shortly after the young Malcolm Little moved to Roxbury with his half-sister, he got a job working on the New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad…About halfway between Boston and New York is a small town called Newington, Connecticut…It is the source of the Social Security number that ended up on the illegal Selective Service registration of Barack Hussein Obama II.

  9. 30 Jan May 7, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Thank you Dr. K for bringing this up and out. Anyone live in LA that can write to Jindal and post his answer?

  10. 31 anonymouse May 7, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Well there IS no 14th amendment jus soli citizenship.

    Look at the facts:

    CRA1866 makes clear if you’re born in-country with any foreign allegiances, you’re not a US Citizen.

    Bobby fails, not a US Citizen at all!

    14th amendment, added 1868, says if you’re born in-country subject to jurisdiction of US, because the 14th’s PURPOSE was to grant citizenship to FORMER SLAVES born country-less who were unfairly denied.

    Bobby fails yet again, he was born subject to the jurisdiction of India.

    CRA1866 was REENACTED AGAIN in 1872 to EMPHASIZE that if you’re born in-country with any foreign allegiances, you’re not a US Citizen.

    I love ya DrK but what you did in this article was twist the 14th and CRA1866 into jus soli only citizenship, which does not exist. Citizenship in the USA has to do with allegiance and requires either an oath with undivided allegiance, giving up ALL other citizenships to naturalize (it’s IN the oath!)

    Bobby fails this yet again he’s not even naturalized…

    OR you need at least one US citizen parent.

    Just being squeezed out 1 foot over the border does not a US Citizen make.

    Bobby Jindal is not a legal US citizen, he as subsumed all benefits thereof and acts as though, but has NO legal basis to call himself a US Citizen.

    I think it utterly critical that the two concepts be separated. There are loads of anchor babies who “proclaim” themselves citizens, when there are no laws to support that.

    I’m curious, why in this article you offer anchor baby citizenship rights?

    • 32 drkate May 7, 2011 at 2:43 pm

      The existing birth right laws in the US grant US citizenship to a person who is born on us soil to immigrants who are permanently here…even though they have not naturalized; this applies as well under 14th amendment citizenship for Jindal. Do you have evidence that he did not naturalize?

      Bobby Jindal is an American citizen…but will never be a natural born citizen simply because of his parents.

    • 33 Tenacity May 7, 2011 at 2:45 pm

      Let me get this straight, you are saying if a baby is born and its parents naturalize shortly after birth, even if that baby is native born, that the child must naturalize when it becomes an adult before it is a citizen?

      • 34 Tenacity May 7, 2011 at 2:58 pm

        It is my understanding that a minor child takes on the citizenship of its parents. Just like Barry took on the Indonesian citizenship of his adopted father Soetoro. Not being of age, he had no choice in the matter and he was not even a native born Indonesian. It is my ‘opinion’ that, although certainly NOT a natural born citizen, the minor Jindal became a citizen of these united States by way of his parents’ naturalization.

        • 35 drkate May 7, 2011 at 2:59 pm

          That is my understanding.

          • 36 anonymouse May 7, 2011 at 3:20 pm

            CRA 1866 bookended the 14th, there was intense debate at the time to make vividly certain that citizenship did not have to do with just birthplace.

            They enacted it before the 14th, the debate over the verbage of the 14th raged (and is abused today) and then RE-enacted CRA1866 in 1872.

            Bobby’s citizenship is claimed by INDIA, and there is no law which says if the parents naturalize then the kids are thus citizens. They were not born with citizen parents, and though they can naturalize themselves as adults as did their parents, they cannot assume birthright US statutory citizenship unless the parents were citizens PRIOR to their birth.

            Read US Code 1404, you either have to be a former slave born subject to jurisdiction, or 1 native US citizen parent born in-country, or 1 US citizen parent pretty much born anywhere but with stipulations.

            When the lying obots try to say you just need over-the-border birthplace for citizenship, then that makes no sense given that part 2 of US Code 1401 would not be necessary, AND it contradicts CRA1866/1872.

            1866 Civil Rights Act (Reenacted in 1872 after addition of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution)
            14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.

            CHAP. XXXI.
            An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.

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

            • 37 drkate May 7, 2011 at 3:33 pm

              There are of course modifications to this and a modern civil rights act, in which Indians, for example, became US citizens. So we must look further for even the question we are asking.

              My understanding so far: As a minor, Bobby became a citizen of the US because his parents renounced their citizenship to India when they naturalized. Minors can’t control what happens, so he became an American citizen. I’m not sure what happens at 18–is he required to naturalize? I passed your question on to CMDR Kerchner… I know I had to declare because my father had never been an American citizen and I was born outside the US but came here at age 3.

              At birth: citizenship–India, US; or India. Either way, not a NBC, not eligible
              At 18: did he have to choose India or US, since his parents had naturalized, he was a US citizen, and was born in the US?
              Now: US citizen. Son of naturalized American citizens.

              If their parents had been naturalized at the time of his birth, he would be a natural born citizen.

              • 38 anonymouse May 7, 2011 at 5:25 pm

                I’m so glad you did!

                We REALLY need to hammer this one out because of anchors and because of how it pertains to NBC!

                From what I see between CRA1866, 14th, and USC1401, jus soli only is NOT a US Citizen….

                but then the State Department (read Obama crap with no laws behind it) has different rules…

                SO don’t the LAWS really matter most? They can’t argue that it’s an old law, because so are many that are still active, such as anti-child labor laws.

                We really badly need an answer to this.

                • 39 bdwilcox May 7, 2011 at 7:29 pm

                  I will tell you that he is a citizen by his jus soli birth. This was the determination of the Grey court in Wong Kim Ark. Because Wong’s parent’s had permanent residence in the US and he was born on US soil, he is a citizen from birth. They never said he was a natural born citizen, in fact saying the opposite. From the WKA ruling: “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

                  You might disagree with the Grey court and the methods they used to come to that conclusion, and I vehemently do, but that was the precedent for jus soli based citizenship from birth.

                  • 40 borderraven May 8, 2011 at 2:27 pm

                    LURIA v. U S, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)

                    Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 , 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225.
                    Turning to the naturalization laws preceding the act of 1906, being [231 U.S. 9, 23] those under which Luria obtained his certificate, we find that they required, first, that the alien, after coming to this country, should declare on oath, before a court or its clerk, that it was bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign sovereignty; second, that at least two years should elapse between the making of that declaration and his application for admission to citizenship; third, that as a condition to his admission the court should be satisfied, through the testimony of citizens, that he had resided within the United States five years at least, and that during that time he had behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and, fourth, that at the time of his admission he should declare on oath that he would support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign sovereignty. These requirements plainly contemplated that the applicant, if admitted, should be a citizen in fact as well as in name,-that he should assume and bear the obligations and duties of that status as well as enjoy its rights and privileges. In other words, it was contemplated that his admission should be mutually beneficial to the government and himself, the proof in respect of his established residence, moral character, and attachment to the principles of the Constitution being exacted because of what they promised for the future, rather than for what they told of the past.

      • 41 borderraven May 7, 2011 at 7:20 pm

        Yes Tenacity,

        All before the moment of birth matters. Naturalization of the parents after the birth does not confer derivative citizenship on the child, but the 14th Amendment, as interpreted by SCOTUS in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) does. Domicile or residence matters too. As in US v Wong Kim Ark the parents were domiciled in the US and he was declared a US Citizen.

        In Perkins v Elg (1939), the father naturalized, and the mother was derivative naturalized (under the February 10, 1855 Act of Congress) before Marie was born in New York, a natural born citizen.

  11. 42 Tenacity May 7, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    In the words of Coach Dave Daubenmire,

    I take no pleasure in saying this, but I don’t believe it.
    It is a sad state of affairs that we have reached the point where you can’t believe anything you hear. In fact, you can’t even believe what you see.
    Call me whatever name you want to, ridiculing me won’t shut me up. The truth is you just can’t believe it any more.
    It, you say. What is it?
    Everything…anything…you just can’t believe it anymore. Modern-day America is just one big pack of lies, told by a cadre of liars.
    I’m sorry…whatever it is…I don’t believe it.
    How about you? Do you believe them? Do you believe the malarkey they are trying to feed us?
    I’m not sure which makes me angrier…the lying…or them thinking I am dumb enough to believe the lies.
    That’s why I have adopted a new position; A variation of Ronald Reagan’s “Trust but verify” philosophy.
    I don’t trust until I verify. That’s my new motto.

    • 43 anonymouse May 7, 2011 at 3:24 pm

      I think a new News channel should be built, called VERIFY TV…with nothing but investigations pros and cons entertaining every conspiracy theory and using facts to let the watcher decide.

      I am so sick of these TALKING HEADS who TELL the viewer what to believe and think.

      • 44 Tenacity May 7, 2011 at 5:06 pm

        You fund it, I’ll run it.

      • 45 Jan May 7, 2011 at 5:57 pm

        Anyone know what Breitbart’s stand is on the BC?
        He has a TV Station?

        Compelled by journalists’ lack of interest in digging deep for the truth regardless of the political consequences, Breitbart was inspired to create the news websites, Breitbart TV,, and

        • 46 finneganswig May 7, 2011 at 7:45 pm

          Breitbart thinks it’s a losing issue. He and Farah had it out in the lobby at cpac or somewhere. There was vid of it at the time.

    • 47 Quantum Leap May 7, 2011 at 3:55 pm


      • 48 Az. Watcher May 7, 2011 at 4:38 pm

        No he wasn’t. That was CIA spin. Pentagon got him. Now watch the spin. All the CIA operatives spinning. Covering. Cowering.
        Pentagon has the goods. Read between the lines. They didn’t need the CIA and don’t answer to them. Different agendas.

        • 49 drkate May 7, 2011 at 4:45 pm

          I know they got someone, but I don’t think its Bin Ladin. Why the muted response from the “Arab Street”?

          I see the CIA-Pentagon stuff. Unfolding

      • 51 heather May 7, 2011 at 9:54 pm

        QL-I believe that he was dead a long time ago and this was a staged event-for barry heroism! I also think that this was cooked up by Penatta/barry and no one else. This is another reason barry chose Penatta for this CIA post. Penatta is deep in the NWO/CFR/Trl.

    • 52 Bones May 7, 2011 at 9:16 pm

      It’s not that they think you are dumb enough to believe the lies. It’s that they are (for the moment) in control, and don’t give a damn about you. Their lies are so flimsy and obvious, they don’t even care enough about you to take the time to lie to you well!

      • 53 RacerJim May 8, 2011 at 8:03 am

        Precisely. And Obama’s latest and all too flimsy and obviously forged birth certificate is a prime example that Obama et al care so little about “We the people…” that they don’t make any effort to lie well!

  12. 54 The Obama Timeline author May 7, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    I agree. Let’s wait and see what develops. Jindal could be an opportunuist, dumping the document now to get it out of the way for a 2012 or 2016 run at the presidency. (He can’t be shooting for VP in 2012 because no GOP candidate is going to waste his VP pick on a state he or she already has in the bag. Picking West or Rubio makes more sense, as it helps win Florida. But Rubio may not be a natural born citizen either. Does anyone know if or when Rubio’s parents became U.S. citizens?)

    Or Jindal released the document knowing full well he is ineligible but can force Obamatons and the media (yes, that is redundant) to discuss it, just as Trump forced the media to question his mother’s place of birth.

    Jindal (and Trump) may be very stupid or very smart. We shall see. If Rove is in on it, well, that’s a different story!

    • 55 Stock May 7, 2011 at 5:12 pm

      If Rubio is typical of the children of the group of people who came here from Cuba of his age group, while he may have been born here, his parents may have obtained citizenship but not prior to the time of birth as there was an anticipation of Castro being removed for some time before the realization came to be that the cause was lost. This is conjecture and a generalization however.

    • 56 heather May 7, 2011 at 10:03 pm

      Rubios parents were born in Cuba and Rubio here, therefore he is not a NBC either.

  13. 57 DABIGRAGU May 7, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    Comedy Break: What if liberals were aboard the Titanic?

  14. 58 drkate May 7, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    OT–what’s going on?

    • 59 bdwilcox May 7, 2011 at 6:38 pm

      Looks like Obama’s dealing coke again. Gotta pay those Perkins Coie bills somehow.

    • 60 heather May 7, 2011 at 10:08 pm

      Dr Kate where did this video come from? Looks like he had some kind of inhaler of sorts/coke?– and took a quick hit before handing over whatever he gave the general.

      • 61 heather May 7, 2011 at 10:18 pm

        At first I thought whatever he took from his pocket he put to his nose but after watching a few times–whatever he took from his pocket he transfered to his other hand, as he was saluting the general and then the transfer of whatever they both had took place, hmm what could that have been? A new code for something against us? Geezzz after his so called killing of bin laden there is no telling what he would do to us!

      • 62 drkate May 7, 2011 at 10:20 pm

        Italian news agency…from giveusliberty1776… check out this frame by frame analysis, I don’t think he snorted anything was just passing the note to his other hand so he could salute

  15. 63 Glorygal May 7, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Here’s an article posted at Heyoka Patriots regarding Bobby Jindal and his BC. I am SO sick of this.

    • 64 drkate May 7, 2011 at 5:08 pm

      Yes, I linked this article in the post, and actually it was the article that forced me to write my post! I am ticked too, and am tired of this constant assault on the constitution. Nip it in the bud and use it to discredit Rove and Obama is what I want. They are quite a pair, eh, Rove and Obama…sitting in a tree…kis… 😯

      • 65 Glorygal May 7, 2011 at 5:40 pm

        Geez – I’m sorry Dr. K! Got so beside myself I didn’t even see it. WHAT KIND OF CRACK ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING??????

        • 66 drkate May 7, 2011 at 5:47 pm

          You know I never mind, because other folks miss it too, so I am glad its out here. no worries!!

  16. 67 anonymouse May 7, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    Japan is sinking?

    Remember when that Dem talked about Guam sinking? Was he confused or conflating or did he know something?

  17. 70 anonymouse May 7, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    My high ranking Navy officer friend watched the so-called Bin Ladin video, of him in Pak watching TV of Obama (of course, bleigh) and hisself…and he noticed that there were USA/Canada style outlets on the wall.

    It’s obvious they’re mocking Americans, taunting them…”yah we know you know we’re full of shit, but you can’t do anything about it.”

    • 71 Glorygal May 8, 2011 at 5:10 am

      And THAT, I’m afraid, is the bottom line. They are ‘in your face’ evil constantly and don’t give a shit WHAT we think. Where the rub REALLY comes in for me is that we are supposed to pray for our enemies. I struggle greatly with that.

  18. 72 anonymouse May 7, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    drk the postings are out of order again, and I was locked out from posting or reading earlier today…

    someone be messin’ w/drkate’s place

    • 73 drkate May 7, 2011 at 5:49 pm

      sorry about the lock out…were comments in moderation?

      Posts are out of order because i removed two comments…maybe will restore them to moderation and see if that works.

  19. 75 Jan E. May 7, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    This may be off topic on this thread,
    or maybe not..

    but I followed a link on Dr. Orly’s page
    to Voltaire News (which seems to
    be of European origin).

    The person who is writing the article
    about Dr. Orly is highly supportive of
    her and her ability to expose so many of
    Obama’s criminal acts.. for instance, the
    SS numbers.

    But what held my interest was that on this
    web site, the word ‘UKELELE’ is used over and over
    in reference to music. (It is not easy to follow
    the reasoning behind all of the references); BUT

    aside from that, we saw that the latest
    fraudulent COLB, has the name ‘UKELELE’ which many thought
    is a signal to indicate that someone, who was
    involved in the making of the document, was
    attempting to expose the document as being non-authentic.
    I am thinking the person is connected with that web site.

    A subtle way to bring down Obama while hoping that the
    rest of the world catches on to the evident forgery.

    Just my observation for what it is worth.

    • 76 drkate May 7, 2011 at 5:50 pm

      I wonder too…but then Ukelele was also on Miki booth’s son’s BC, if memory serves.

      I thought it was so, so obvious….interesting find!

    • 77 Drew May 7, 2011 at 6:36 pm

      There is no ‘UKELELE’ on the birth certificates.

      The Local Registrar’s signature on Obama’s LF-COLB appears to read:

      ‘U K L Lee’ … where the first letter is definitely a ‘U’.

      The other, similar signature is on Edith Coats’ 1962 LF-COLB:

      If you look closely, it instead reads:

      ‘C K L Lee’ … where the ‘C’ matches the right half of the ‘K’.

      If the correct name is ‘C K L Lee’, then Obama appears to be passing a forgery.

      ( The forger misread the ‘C’, and traced-over it, putting a ‘U’ in its place.)

      A private investigator with access to databases, should look into this.

      Anyone know how to contact Susan Daniels?

      • 78 Bones May 8, 2011 at 8:56 am

        That’s in keeping with my Clifford hypothesis. The name is almost surely Korean in origin. K L would be a common middle initial pairing in Korean and much less probable elsewhere.

  20. 79 borderraven May 7, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    Mitt Romney is a natural born citizen.

    Mitt Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan.[1] He was the youngest child of George W. Romney, a man of humble upbringing who by 1948 had become an automobile executive, and Lenore Romney.(wiki)

    On the 10th of February, 1855, Congress passed an act,1 entitled ”An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits thereof,’ the second section of which provides, ‘that any woman, who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.”
    (Repealed 1922)

    George Wilcken Romney (July 8, 1907 – July 26, 1995)

    George Wilcken Romney, was born a US Citizen, in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua – one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico – on July 8, 1907, to American parents.
    The Mexican Revolution broke out in 1910 and … Young George heard the sound of distant gunfire and saw rebels walking through the village streets.[11][12] The Romney family fled and returned to the United States in July 1912, leaving their home and almost all of their property behind. (wiki)

    • 80 drkate May 7, 2011 at 6:54 pm

      citizen, not natural born citizen. Nope, don’t buy it.

      • 81 anonymouse May 7, 2011 at 6:59 pm

        If Mitt’s dad was born of US parents, he’s at least a US Citizen, thus if Mitt’s mother was also a US citizen and he was born in-country, then Mitt would be NBC.

      • 82 borderraven May 8, 2011 at 8:34 am

        I’m not endorsing Mitt Romney, just being a fair sport, but his father was born under the February 10, 1855 Act of Congress, in Mexico, and was born a US citizen. Mitt Romney, was born in the US, a natural born citizen.

        The February 10, 1855 Act of Congress, answered the question about Marie Elg’s mother, in Perkins v Elg (1939). Some accounts state only the father was naturalized, so then how could SCOTUS declare Marie a NBC? With the mother derivative naturalized before Marie’s birth in New York, then rightfully Marie is a natural born citizen, whose citizenship could not be affected by removal as a minor to Sweden. Then also was Barack Hussein Obama II’s native-born citizenship unaffected by removal to Indonesia, as a minor, and temporary Indonesian citizenship for the convenience of education while there.

        Obama departed the US on a US passport, and returned at age 10, a US Citizen with a US passport. How did he travel to Kenya as a US Senator, and what did he do then?

        • 83 anonymouse May 8, 2011 at 8:42 am

          Read LC’s article yesterday on the misnumbered COLB…Madeleine bribed the registrar,that’s why it’s out of order and why there’s no hospital records

          Has anyone inquired where Madeleine was, did she travel? I’m starting to think she was mom and Stanley raised, sort of, Ofraud.

        • 84 drkate May 8, 2011 at 9:10 am

          Borderraven…I do not agree with what you have written here, especially Obama’s citizenship when he went to indonesia. We simply do not know because we have no information.

          How do you know about Obama’s US passport? You don’t, so don’t try to make up stuff here.

          Re: Romney…I continue to think that romney is rove’s stooge, the ‘pick’, and his job will be to lose to Obama.

          • 85 borderraven May 8, 2011 at 2:10 pm

            Dr. Kate,

            I was questioning Obama’s travel documents between US and Indonesia, not making a statement of fact.

            Regardless of the Romney/Rove political affiliation the Act of Congress on February 10, 1855(Repealed 1922), quoted above is in the Congressional Record.

            I cannot change the truth, nor can I make the truth hurt less, but it is the truth.

            • 86 drkate May 8, 2011 at 2:21 pm

              Borderraven, this is not about ‘the truth hurts’, for heavens sake!

              You were not questioning, you were stating that Obama had a US passport…challenging whether he lost his ‘native’ citizenship,,,blah blah.

              And no proof of what you say with Romney, citing a law repealed in 1922.

              I don’t care what the political affiliation is, so you can drop that. It is the Constitution and eligibility and this ‘creating’ things out of laws repealed is not going to fly.

              • 87 borderraven May 8, 2011 at 3:14 pm

                Dr. Kate,

                I don’t make it up.
                I share what I’ve found.
                I figure things out.
                The Obama passport thing is somewhere in my files. He left Hawaii on a US passport, arrived in Indonesia a US citizen. Left Indonesia as a minor, and returned to the US. SCOTUS ruling in Perkins V Elg retained his US citizenship.

                Until proven born in Kenya, he was born in Hawaii.
                We need to put his father and mother in Kenya, in 1961.
                Was his father in classes in 1961, and when?

                KELLY V. OWEN, 74 U. S. 496 (1868)
                The Act of Congress of February 10, 1855, which declares
                “That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen”

                The February 10, 1855 Act of Congress (2-parts) was in effect for 67 years, until it was repealed in 1922, and the repeal was not retroactive.

                Marie Elg’s parents emigrated from Sweden to the U.S. in 1906.
                Her father was naturalized in 1906.
                Her mother was derivative naturalized under the February 10, 1855 Act of Congress.
                Marie Elg was born in the U.S. in 1907, a natural born citizen.

                George Wilcken Romney was born, in Mexico, on July 8, 1907, a US citizen.

  21. 94 Tenacity May 7, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    I’ve been having a little fun over at Nola (Jindal article) exercising the principle of repetition quoting Vattel. I’m betting it will bring out the obots in force.

  22. 95 Philo-Publius May 7, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    In U.S. Supreme Court case, MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite ruled: “…The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

    In U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Justice Gray reiterated the Constitution did not define a natural born citizen. This has never been disputed so the definition of a natural born citizen is NOT in the 14th Amendment. We always need to hammer this point home when dealing with those who claim NBC can be found under that amendment.

  23. 96 sandstone May 7, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    I wrote about Jindal’s and Rubio’s ineligibility in February.

    The reason the GOP, so many members of Congress, and the FOX NEWS talking heads have ignored the Poseur POTUS is because they don’t like the NBC clause either.

    Orinn Hatch, Darrell Issa, Arlan Spector all are on the record of feeling the NBC clause is “unfair”. Issa and Hatch have introduced legislation in an effort to change the NBC clause. There are many more. The last honest attempt by Congress to address the issue was in 2000 when Barney Frank headed the committee. BYW, Joe Scarborough sat on that committee.

    Constitutionally Speaking has blogged about the number of “private Laws” that have been passed in Congress awarding natural born citizenship to 15 or 18(?) people in recent years.

    On more than one occasion I’ve heard Rove and Hannity talking about Romney/Rubio ticket in 2012 Mark Levin was on radio gushing over him as well and for the same reason.

    It’s time to notify FOX, the GOP, and all the other so called conservatives that it’s time to step up on this issue or they’ve lost our support.

    BTW, Obama has made a fool of Trump. If Trump remains silent about the phony LFBC and about his 4 children (who are also ineligible to run for the office of POTUS) he’s nothing but a blowhard in my book.

    If Trump makes this known Obama cannot run anymore, in my humble estimation. Really, how can Don Jr or Ivana be ineligible to run with their foreign born mother, yet BHO is eligible with his Kenyan father? I think not!

  24. 97 Voco Indubium May 7, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    RE: “JanH – Here is my theory. The whole thing here is not really about Obama. It is about Article II. This move with Jindal is geared to move the sympathies of the people away from adherence to Article II.”

    You are right that it is about Article II. However, Article II is the immediate impediment to the current regime. It is not separable. Kill two birds with one stone?

  25. 98 Guesswhat May 7, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    Interested Link, part of info:

    # Two reports, one domestic, one from abroad, says Obama’s people have engaged a private uniform company to design and manufacture uniforms for a private Obama Security Force. The domestic report supposedly comes from someone within the private company. This writer continues to believe Obama to be the most dangerous person to ever occupy the Oval Office. Another report says he told factions in China that he is going nowhere, that he will still be in office 20 years from now.
    # This writer observes the U.S. being converted to a full blown Police State at break neck speed.
    # Unbelievable requirements are being instituted for obtaining a PASSPORT (provide the name and phone numbers for all your jobs and supervisors while you were in high school).

    Can you imagine Obama being for 20 years, as he stated??

    • 99 heather May 7, 2011 at 10:35 pm

      I sure hope this is propaganda only! The only way he can do this is through the patriot act–hence massive false flags and terrorism coming our way–that is the only way he can remain for 20 yrs–and guess what we will not stand for that.

  26. 100 Voco Indubium May 7, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    May I change the subject for a second?

    Do you have a link for a good legal analysis of the 9th Circuit – Kreep & Orly hearing?


    • 102 heather May 7, 2011 at 10:40 pm

      Those 3 photos that foxnews released tonight did NOT look anything like bin laden. The face was fuller, the one ear was higher up, the eyebrows were too far apart. totally different–and I dont think age of 10yrs makes someone look that different.

      • 103 Drew May 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm

        “Those 3 photos that foxnews released tonight…”

        What is the Link to the page with those photos?


  27. 104 charlesmountain May 7, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Corsi says there is no BC. Usurper not born in Hawaii. Good video.

  28. 107 magnetrak May 7, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    OT: So OBL has been doing a reality TV show for Al Jazeera called “Keeping Up With Osama in the Million Dollar Mansion near Abbottabad”. All through that 7 years we though he was living in a dismal cave in the treacherous mountains along the border. We also got the biggest find in espionage history–I wonder if they’d like my home movies, too? I have miles & miles of old VHS tapes…

Comments are currently closed.

May 2011
« Apr   Jun »

Recent Comments

Get Your Copy at

All Pets Haven

Blog Archives

Just follow copyright law and nobody gets hurt!

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

drkatesview thanks you!

Since 8/15/09


Listen to drkate’s Revolution Radio

RSS Big Government

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

RSS American Thinker

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

RSS American Spectator

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

%d bloggers like this: