The Man Who Couldn’t Beat Obama Endorses the Man Who Couldn’t Beat McCain

©2012 drkate

John McCain endorsed Mitt Romney.   Its the kiss of death, LOL!  ’nuff said.

Open thread.

227 Responses to “The Man Who Couldn’t Beat Obama Endorses the Man Who Couldn’t Beat McCain”

  1. 1 drkate January 4, 2012 at 7:46 pm

    This won’t even be entertaining…the pack of losers moves ‘forward’.

    Looks like Trump and Romney will allow Obarky to ‘win’ again

    Let’s hope Georgia starts the ball rolling on eligibility…

    • 2 Jan January 5, 2012 at 5:21 pm

      And if Ron Paul has to run third party and so does Trump, obat will be a full fledged dictator. This morning on FOX they were asking, Is obama a Monarch? Is that the “new word” for Dictator?

  2. 3 no-nonsense-nancy January 4, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    I wish I could wake up tomarrow and have this circus over with and a President Paul. I love your title, Kate. I thought the same thing when I heard it today. Why would McCain think anyone cares what he thinks, anyway? He wrote the bill that could imprision liberals as well as conservatives!

  3. 4 Tenacity January 4, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    I’m going to keep posting these links in hope that a few new lurkers might see them.

    Mitt Romney may not be a natural born citizen. If, as reported, his polygamous grandparents surrendered their U.S. citizenship when they moved to Mexico and Mitt’s dad, George who was born in Chihuahua, Mexico (1907), never naturalized, then Mitt is not eligible to be President.

    Is Mitt, a high priest in the LDS church, trying to fulfill the same Joseph Smith prophecy as his father George was?

    • 5 heather January 4, 2012 at 9:43 pm

      Well based on what I read today, his father did not give up his American citizenship to move to Mexico–and even though Mitt was born in Mexico per what I posted prior thread, then Mitt is not a NBC.

      And I am sick of these talk radio hosts pushing Jingle and Rubio as veeps. Once I emailed Rush to stop with that push–he did, I have never heard it from him again, however now it’s coming from others and reporter Jamie Dupree is bringing it up.

      • 6 drkate January 4, 2012 at 9:47 pm

        How was the elder Romney governor of MI. Mitt was not born in Mexico.

        This is another Rove set up.

        • 7 heather January 4, 2012 at 9:50 pm

          Don’t know — so much has been setup and scrubbed who and what do we believe—show us his birth certicate along with barrys.

          OMG–we have been so blinded for so many yrs and they have gotten over on us for yrs and now with the people wide awake all they can do is make crap up and delete the truth.

          • 8 drkate January 4, 2012 at 10:11 pm

            Yes, this is to our advantage to now know what is going on. I am sure they counted on all of us being blinded, but we are not…so keep your ears and eyes wide open. They are fighting us big time and we must be smarter than they are…

            • 9 drkate January 4, 2012 at 10:13 pm

              Ron Paul on Iran captured on vpod


              • 10 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 12:38 am

                Did you read how the “Iran testing of nuclear bomb” was actually photoshopped by the pigs in DC?

              • 11 Tenacity January 5, 2012 at 1:15 am

                Wow, what a dynamite interview with Tim Baldwin. I was very pleased to hear him making the same points as I have been about the importance of State legislation and Sound Money, being necessary to correct the other problems.

                • 12 sky January 7, 2012 at 9:08 am

                  Its all about the money & the elitist,politicians, military get their money from the corrupt Fed.They dont even pay into social security,and some are involved in insider trading.Its time to end the fed,and clean the goverment from this ponzi scheme,that has lasted since Woodrow Wilson.

      • 13 Troy January 4, 2012 at 10:42 pm

        Mitt wasn’t born in Mexico….His father was….Mitt was born in Michigan.

    • 14 heather January 4, 2012 at 9:47 pm

      I see this is dated for 07 and good thing you saved this, because everywhere I searched for info on NBC today had been scrubed–except that one paragraph that I posted below.

    • 15 cedartree January 4, 2012 at 10:26 pm

      a jihadi, a high LDS priest

  4. 16 cedartree January 4, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    The Constitution does define a NBC
    it says a NBC is different from a Citizen (Article II vs. Article I)
    the only different arrangement which sets apart a natural born citizen from a statutory naturalized citizen is “2 US citizen parents born on US soil”

    that’s also already in the statutes


    • 18 Paula January 5, 2012 at 3:31 pm

      Saw this comment over at The Post & Email by thinkwell. I thought it was good.

      Dear New Hampshire Ballot Commission,

      Words mean something. This was especially true to the Founders who did not willy-nilly place superfluous words into the founding document over which they carefully deliberated for many months. If the Constitution states that our President must be a “natural born Citizen,” it is clear that the Founders meant the requirement to be more restrictive than just simply being born a citizen. Obviously the qualifier “natural” adds a further important something or the Founders would have simply written “born Citizen.”

      If you cross a donkey with a horse, a jackass results. The result is neither a natural born donkey nor a natural born horse. What ensues is an unnatural hybrid that is neither completely donkey nor horse and is sterile and unable to reproduce its own kind (let alone donkey or horse). I submit to the NH ballot commission that, politically, our Founders would have considered Obama to be just such a jackass.

      By examining the writings of the Founders, one can clearly see that the intent of the natural born Citizen requirement was to ensure that our Commander-in-Chief be born with sole, exclusive allegiance to the country that was to entrust him with its command. Obama, by his own admission, was born equally a citizen of Great Britain as recognized by US treaty and law. It is insanity to suggest that the Founders would have ever intended that such a person, born with equal allegiance to their former bloody enemy, be given command of their own military forces.

      When two horses mate it takes no law to ensure that they do not produce a dog or a donkey. It is by nature that only a horse ensues. That, dear ballot commissioners, is the obvious meaning of the constitutional phrase “natural born.” To produce a Citizen by nature and nature alone (no law required) requires two parents who themselves are resident Citizens. This was the Founders’ understanding in their use and inclusion of the phrase, natural born Citizen.

      Yes, words truly do mean something.

  5. 19 heather January 4, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    how much more are we going to allow him to get over on our laws? this is outrageous–not to mention unconstitutional.

  6. 20 heather January 4, 2012 at 10:37 pm

    This is one dangerous invention. It can now be seen as a weapon of mass destruction, right next to haarp and chemtrails.

    • 22 heather January 5, 2012 at 9:08 am

      Barry has planned this all along–a short while ago he had said he wanted to bring back subprime lending and this will be just that.

      For those homeowners that have little or no equity, the banks will make billions on. The underwriting guidelines will benefit the banks. For each “ding”, be it low to medium fico scores, low or nil equity, no income verification, to name a few, will add at least a half of basis point/or interest rate. what will advertise as a 3.75% rate with add-ons could end up as 5%+/whatever they decide to add. This will open up a new ponzi scheme and be a burden to those homeowners who have paid on time.

      Having no appraisals done is really a very serious issue. What happens to the house next door that is currently occupied and currently paying on time or is a free and clear owned property. Their value will most likely go down, depending on the location of course. What happens to the homeowner refinancing when an appraisal isn’t required—such as comps, home repairs needed (fha and va are very clear on requirement needs)–this could turn out to be the next nightmare all so barry gets kudos for the next election. If he were so worried about this then why didn’t he work on the market when he first got in?

      Lying sack of crap he is. This is nothing more than subprime lending come back to rebite us all, not to mention the worst of all, “the 125% loan”—-the upside down deal. Oh and what will the homeowners be required to GIVE to get this? Will they ever own their properties after the term payoff or could the same print read—something like the govt owns your house?

      This is a real problem and if this new unconstitutional consumer guy has complete control, you can bet there will be strings attached.

      • 23 heather January 5, 2012 at 9:21 am

        correction word–not same but SMALL print read.

        • 24 heather January 5, 2012 at 4:20 pm

          I think that most people who try to refi will find that the FHA guidelines will be full of red tape and once they finally refi they need to know that they will never own their homes.

          Barry and co want no private property ownership, remember rules for radicals and the communist manifesto? This refi govt ponzi scheme will devastate homeowners in the end and only the govt will own property.

          I hope they read the fine print.

  7. 25 Tenacity January 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm

    Judge Napolitano and CATO leader show Santorum stating he is against all the things America stands for:

    and of course Romney is for gun control and federal control of your health, etc.

    • 29 drkate January 5, 2012 at 1:10 am

      This I am afraid is incorrect. You do not have to be a natural born citizen to bestow natural born citizenship on your offspring. Who matters is George Romney, who was naturalized before Mittens was born. Most confusing and not accurate. We are chasing down a rabbit hole.

      • 30 Tenacity January 5, 2012 at 1:20 am

        What specifically are you saying was incorrect? George Romney was born in Mexico of Mexican citizens and there is no record of his naturalization before or after Mittens was born in 1947. Thus, Mitt was not natural born citizen in U.S. That is not a rabbit hole. If George, Mitt’s dad, naturalized before Mitt was born in ’47, then produce the proof or go home.

        • 31 Tenacity January 5, 2012 at 1:26 am

          Did you miss this part of the sentence I believe you are referring to? “…or became naturalized BEFORE Mitt was born…” I agree the writing in that latter article is not as clear as it could be because it mentions that George Romney was not natural born. It is interesting that George ran for President and may not have even been a citizen, much less a natural born citizen. People just ass-u-me and fail to defend the constitution.

        • 32 Troy January 5, 2012 at 7:30 am

          Mitt Romney’s grandparents were U.S. citizens that moved to Mexico….I don’t think moving to Mexico forfeited their US citizenship….If it did then Jesse Ventura is no longer a US citizen because he lives in Mexico now, also….Maybe we should ask Mr. Ventura what his current status is….Mitt’s grandparents were US citizens who gave birth to Mitt’s dad in Mexico….It seems Mitt’s grandparents were dual citizens when birthing Mitt’s dad in Mexico….Mitt’s dad would have been, at best, a dual citizen and likely a full blown Mexican citizen….I was always under the impression that Mitt’s dad naturalized here in the US before Willard (Mitt) was born….I too, have not been able to find any proof of this.

          • 33 Tenacity January 5, 2012 at 9:44 am

            The polygamous grandparents were seeking to permanently remove themselves from U.S. jurisdiction and make a life in Mexico including owning land. It is not only possible but likely that they became citizens of Mexico. Ventura is in a different situation and laws have changed down there regarding who can own land. I’m not saying anything for sure here except the same scrutiny should apply to Romney as S/Ob, Rubio, McCann & others. The question is, were Mr. & Mrs. George Romney U.S. citizens in 1947 when Mitt was born. It appears they may not have been. If so, prove it. If Romney is challenged on this, then the same accountability WILL apply to S/Ob without any reasonable claim of prejudice.

            • 34 drkate January 5, 2012 at 11:33 am

              agreed, if it can be proven. But the articles cited are absolutely in the wrong direction and do nothing to focus the question like a laser.

        • 35 drkate January 5, 2012 at 11:30 am

          Hello? ‘go home’? LOL The answer will lie in the state of Michigan’s records when he ran for governor. Even then they wouldn’t have allowed a Mexican citizen to be in the governor’s mansion. Check his death certificate and social security number and records.

          That said, I would not be surprised as this is what Karl Rove did by placing in McCain.

          And I am telling you this is a major distraction that will get us nowhere.

      • 38 heather January 5, 2012 at 4:37 pm

        “MITTENS” Oh I love that! lol

    • 39 Troy January 5, 2012 at 7:16 am

      Questionable NBC status of Romney and non NBC status of Rubio, Jindal and McCain would explain why the GOP has failed to oust Barry….They have planned all along to install Romney and have every intention of one day installing Rubio.

      • 40 Tenacity January 5, 2012 at 9:59 am

        I believe it goes even deeper on this as They* have previously installed non-NBCs with aliases and phony ancestry (e.g.: Scherff & possibly Eisenhauer). We have only limited knowledge of the total picture of the infiltration of foreign interests (i.e.: operation paperclip & etc.). There ultimate goal to destroy the constitution and protect past and future acts by maintaining control by those not loyal to the American people.

        • 41 cedartree January 5, 2012 at 11:30 am

          I sometimes think these past 3 years have been an awakening that this stuff has always gone one, and were it not for the internet I’d be just as blissfully ignorant of it as in former administrations

  8. 43 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 12:57 am

    Vote them all out. This should be the next plan. See the list of those who voted for NDAA.
    Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress.
    These collectivists in government indeed signed their death warrant. What a bunch of dumb fools.
    Naomi Wolf says:

    The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in charge of everyone else – as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed this power over to the military can attest.

    Perhaps Congress assumes that it will always only be ‘they’ who are targeted for arrest and military detention: but sadly, Parliamentary leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence when the military obtains the power to make civilian arrests and hold civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception to this rule. Just as I traveled the country four years ago warning against the introduction of torture and secret prisons – and confidently offering a hundred thousand dollar reward to anyone who could name a nation that allowed torture of the ‘other’ that did not eventually turn this abuse on its own citizens – (confident because I knew there was no such place) – so today I warn that one cannot name a nation that gave the military the power to make civilian arrests and hold citizens in military detention, that did not almost at once turn that power almost against members of that nation’s own political ruling class. This makes sense – the obverse sense of a democracy, in which power protects you; political power endangers you in a militarized police state: the more powerful a political leader is, the more can be gained in a militarized police state by pressuring, threatening or even arresting him or her.

    Dumb as dirt. Historically, the first people to be detained under this rule are the journalists, those in congress, and union bosses. OBarfy has something up his sleeve. He owes them all big favors and is not going to pay.

    This is a law modeled after the one done by Mussolini and Stalin.
    Brace yourself peeps. The writing is on the wall. Maybe Canada is not so bad after all. I think we all lost our country to the ugly tan man and those who aided and abetted him in this take over dictatorship are going to be first on the list to go to the fema camps.

    Congress just signed their death warrants and those of thier families for perks and bribes….stupid fugs.

    Something serious is coming down the pike soon. This latest debaucle where he appointed 4 new people without the approval of congress takes the cake. One person is not even a citizen nor does she speak english.

    Stupid fugs who voted for this prick. We warned them but they wouldn’t listen.

    • 44 Durus January 5, 2012 at 1:03 pm

      From Enrolled Bill H. R. 1540 [ ] :


      (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

      (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

      (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined–

      (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

      (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

      (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

      (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

      (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

      (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

      (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

  9. 45 patriot4usa January 5, 2012 at 10:03 am

    “It took them three hundred years and trillions of dollars to build a theatre of darkness,
    yet the light of only one match can burn it down.
    Please do not let this light go out.” –

    [emphasis mine]
    Face it, the election was stolen

    • 46 Tenacity January 5, 2012 at 11:26 am

      I’d say Stone hit that nail on the head.

      • 47 no-nonsense-nancy January 5, 2012 at 12:03 pm

        That’s a good article. I agree with him, except I think we can do it wthout a violent revolution.But we do need at least 10 million people in DC. At one time! His analogy about the boneless, skinless chicken waiting to be eaten is so true. We Americans do not have the intelligence, valor, fortitude, fight, and whatever else our founders had to save this country. It’s sad but true. If it were otherwise we would have had millions in DC long ago. We have enough people awake, their just a bunch of chickens waiting for the slaughter. Just my opinion. Doesn’t really matter if no one agrees with me.

  10. 49 Tenacity January 5, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Well, Martha Trowbridge has struck again. I am reeling from what I just read. If she is off base or writing good fiction, she is tying it to documented reality quite well. You might want to be sitting in an arm chair as you read this chapter. I wouldn’t want you sliding off your chair. If she speaks any truth, why in God’s name would she conceal the true identity of Jo Ann Newman. I can’t wait to read your feedback on this.

    • 50 drkate January 5, 2012 at 11:36 am

      pure fiction, it will make a great novel someday.

      And this is another distraction. Obama is stuck with the story he’s given so far, and that’s that. We will not get to it until Obama is out and is arrested for crimes against humanity.

  11. 52 cedartree January 5, 2012 at 11:31 am

    whoever is a statutory naturalized citizen can never be a natural born citizen

    that is my simplest distillation of what is directly in the constitution and statutes

  12. 54 Stock January 5, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    If Mittenman is not an NBC the info should be sent to Newts campaign asap-I hear Newt is looking for some revenge.

  13. 60 kiltie January 5, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    And, unfortunately, there is some question about Santorum. His father, although he served in the U.S. military during WWII, and serving in the military entitles you to American citizenship, I believe you still have to indicate you want it. My brother, a Scot, got his citizenship this way, when he was drafted into the Army in the 50’s, and he itold the family he was asked if he wanted it upon discharge after 4 years, which he did, and received it late summer of 1959. Santorum, Sr. may have been totally unaware he needed it, or needed to ask for it, in the fog of war. Someone on one of the blogs indicated he accessed a list of those who received American citizenship due to their military service during WWII, and Santorum was not on it. Sad, if true.

  14. 61 Durus January 5, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    More of “Operation Mockingbird”… Obama’s NDAA signing statement…

    • 62 Tenacity January 5, 2012 at 4:10 pm

      It is interesting that he reads from a summary report and then does not give the context of page 657 of the bill itself. If someone were detained, would they look to the summary or the bill itself to dictate the parameters of detention or to that particular page of the bill that authorizes the detention? The Supreme Court has stated that the 16th Amendment conveyed no new taxing authority, but it hasn’t stopped the IRS from collecting income tax that was found unconstitutional in 1895 by SCOTUS. Others have read and published parts of the NDAA that says civilians can be detained and S/Ob has affirmed it. Now who is giving the straight scoop? I guess the only way to know is to read it yourself and watch how it is applied. I’d like to give West the benefit of the doubt, but he is a politician and I’ve learned better than to give any politician the benefit of the doubt.

      • 63 heather January 5, 2012 at 6:18 pm

        And why would barry deliberately say he would arrest and detain american citizens–because he has the right too? So next time some so called criminal politician reads a bill—demand they read the entire language.

        This guy has become part of the boys club–most of them do. I cannot trust him either.

        Therefore Ron Paul is the only trust worthy statesmen in DC. He is our only hope of change.

        • 64 drkate January 5, 2012 at 6:22 pm

          I am so disappointed in Allen West.

          • 65 heather January 5, 2012 at 6:48 pm

            Ditto Dr Kate–I am disappointed in my senator – Inhofe who voted for this bill–did he not read it? He has been one of the true patriot politicians for yrs and now he voted for this? Needless to say of course I sent him one wholliping nasty email.

            I can say that Dr. Tom Coburn did NOT vote for it–and of course it takes a lot of umf for him to vote yes on anything–he is known as Dr No. At least he didnt vote for it.

            Those who did, will get voted out because I plan on only allowing them 1 term each. No matter who it is, 1 term each. Then they are gone.

  15. 67 Tathy January 5, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    Ron Paul received 4 times the donations that others received from Federal employees. Even though he wants to shrink the government.

  16. 69 Tenacity January 5, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    I understand Gingrich’s campaign is airing this video:

  17. 70 uguesswhat January 5, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Face it, the election was stolen from RP . . . . .

    I agree with this guy’s assessments. DRUDGE was reporting RP
    leading, what happened all of a sudden????? The fix was in, thats what!!! We can expact the same in 2012.

  18. 72 heather January 5, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    while he cuts our military and puts our troops out of work, he increases the spending by building unnecessary drones to take the place of troops. This is a very bad idea.

  19. 73 heather January 5, 2012 at 7:39 pm,0,6718099.story

    so what will happen, a slap on the wrist? does anyone of these criminals ever go to a real prison?

    I hope this comes back to bite them all.

    • 77 Tenacity January 5, 2012 at 9:24 pm

      Where’s the original 13th Amendment when you need it. I don’t know his politics…if he wants to end the fed and enforce his grandfather’s EO to have the government print silver certificates then maybe not so bad. The fact that he is an attorney is not a good indicator. Bring back the original 13th!

    • 78 drkate January 5, 2012 at 9:26 pm

      another pasty Kennedy

  20. 79 heather January 5, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    Hmm–I have an idea for RP to win…..all of us need to pretend we want romney and then blast the airwaves that we are all voting for RP! Let them think we are stupid, and then whamo–bring it on RP!

  21. 81 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 9:47 pm

    I feel sick. They are saying that Santorum is the front runner in NH and very popular. They (MSM) are lying and this is a set up to steal the election. I can’t stand the war monger Santorum. Can someone post the truth about this guy from wikpedia. He is guaranteed to lose against obama. Mitt is not the threat anymore. Having the Santorum family in the WH is like having the Adams family in there. Much worse than what we have already.

  22. 82 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    Run Sarah Run!

    • 83 drkate January 5, 2012 at 9:52 pm

      I could get behind Sarah Palin, especially if she chose Ron Paul as VP or planned to put him at Treasury. What is she waiting for????

      • 84 heather January 5, 2012 at 10:33 pm

        Didn’t she say she would jump in at a later date if she didn’t see anyone that we the people wanted? I’m sure I remember her saying that, very similar to Trumps idea.

      • 85 Katie January 6, 2012 at 8:06 am

        I believe she’s waiting for enough people to do and comprehend the vetting like many of your posters are doing. If she jumped in at the beginning, she’d be the only one that all the arrows are focused on, and most people would think Mitt Romney is the “most electable”. (how many people know he’s only won 5 out of 22 attempts at elections???)

        In addition, it gives people more time to see The Undefeated documentary to understand just how qualified she is.

        Palin introduced the “crony capitalism” to the masses on Sept. 3rd in Indianola, IA. That laid the groundwork for Peter Schweiter’s book, “Throw Them All Out”. Schweitzer is employed as a foreign policy adviser for SarahPac.

        She tackled corruption in BOTH parties in AK, spearheaded the largest private energy project in the history of the nation, stood toe to toe with ‘big oil’ and beat them at their corrupt game, been a Commander-in-Chief (a real one!), and the list goes on and on. She led the effort to make massive changes in the state government, and two of her largest contributions ended up with a 59 – 1 vote.

        I told people last summer that they needed to watch The Undefeated to understand how the propagandists will control the message. If they can hide her jaw-dropping qualifications from the masses, you can imagine what they’d do to the candidate you support.

        A President Sarah Palin and a Vice President Paul, or Secretary of the Treasury Paul would bring a powerful team of principled and experienced executives that could begin to turn this thing around.

        Palin was just announced as a special keynote speaker for CPAC on Feb. 11th. Stay tuned.

  23. 86 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    Santorum’s legislative record shows that his real workaday agenda was not so much waging culture wars as protecting the interests of the 1 percent, the millionaires and billionaires who funded the modern Republican Party. You could say that Rick Santorum is just another politician. But that would be giving him too much credit.

  24. 88 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    A so-called “leadership PAC” created by Santorum that was supposed to fund other Republicans instead seemed to mostly pay for the lifestyle of Santorum and those around him. My investigation of the America’s Foundation PAC showed that only 18 percent of its money went to fund political candidates, less — and typically far less — than any other “leadership PACs.” What America’s Foundation did spend a lot on with what looked like everyday expenses, including 66 trips to the Starbucks in Santorum’s then-hometown of Leesburg, Va., multiple fast-food outings and expenditures at Walmart, Target and Giant supermarkets. Campaign finance experts said the PAC’s expenses — paid for by donations from wealthy businessmen and lobbyists — were “unconventional,” at best and arguably not legal. Santorum also funded his large Leesburg “McMansion” with a $500,000 mortgage from a private bank run by a major campaign donor, in a program that was only supposed to be open to high-wealth investment clients in the trust, which Santorum was not, and closed to the general public.

  25. 89 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Santorum didn’t seem to be against government waste when it came to his family. During his years in the Senate, Santorum raised his family in northern Virginia and rarely if ever seemed to use the small house that he claimed as his legal residence, in a blue-collar Pittsburgh suburb called Penn Hills. So Pennsylvania voters were shocked when they found out the Penn Hills School District had paid out $72,000 for the home cyberschooling of five of Santorum’s kids, hundreds of miles away in a different state. The cash-strapped district was unsuccessful in its efforts to get any of its money back from Santorum.

    • 90 heather January 5, 2012 at 10:39 pm

      Yep, this has become a huge problem for him and there are alot of people in Pa who do not like him at all and wouldn’t vote for him.

      He seems to be do as I say not as I do and we the people have had enough of that.

  26. 91 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    re: A $750 million energy plant in Schuylkill County, Pa., that was to convert coal to liquids but needed massive subsidies. Santorum boasted of his rule in securing an $100 million federal loan for the project — which had hired Pennsylvania’s top Republican Party power broker of the 2000s, Bob Asher, as a lobbyist and paid him at least $900,000. Despite Santorum’s efforts, the plant has not been built. Where did the money go?

  27. 93 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    The real Rick Santorum is indeed a frothy mixture — of self-interest, loose ethical standards, and careerism in a career that’s been largely devoted not so much to the social causes about which he makes headlines as looking out for the interests of big corporations and the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. It’s a shame that more voters don’t know that yet. That is the “Google problem” that Santorum actually deserves.

    He was voted one of the three most corrupt Senators in the Congress – Why – we need to ask that question?

  28. 94 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 10:25 pm

    Sorry for overposting dk. WE can’t let this pig win NH.

    Rick Santorum named MOST CORRUPT SENATOR!

    Rick Santorum, like most Republican candidates­, fashions himself the one true conservati­ve running in 2012. If the thought of big, intrusive liberal government offends you, he might just be your man. And if you favor a big, intrusive Republican government­, he’s unquestion­ably your candidate.

    The trouble with my uncle, Rick Santorum

    • 95 drkate January 5, 2012 at 10:35 pm

      never overposting, QL…thank you. Great information for a post on the slimy santorum and mittens the flip flopper

  29. 96 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    People are out of work and the American Dream is lost. Families are being foreclosed on and being put out in the streets. And all Santorum, can campaign about is who is Gay. He wants laws that make women barefoot and pregnant. What a mysoginistic opportunist. What a bigot and a racist.

    Gag me.

    Please write a piece on him dk if you can. NH voting is coming quick.

    • 97 heather January 5, 2012 at 10:42 pm

      Doesn’t he know that the NWO gang are bringing in population control? lol—can’t be going around pregnant and barefoot — that’s passe’ now. The new gig is foot loose and fancy free!

  30. 98 Quantum Leap January 5, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    Before I forget peeps you need to register Repub for RP to make your vote count by the end of January or the sooner the better. They don’t allow Indies to vote in some states.

    Spread the word.

  31. 101 heather January 5, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    barry and the IRS tight as ticks. Don’t trust or believe anything coming from the IRS-they get paid by him and remember he hired 18k more and armed them with high powered automatic rifles.

  32. 102 Troy January 5, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Sick Rantorum – 2012!

  33. 103 heather January 5, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    oh thank you barry soetoro–aren’t you so wonderful to allow this to happen. btw-i blame everything on him.

  34. 104 Tenacity January 5, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    Talk about a telling tale, look at Romney’s top donors.

    Goldman Sachs: $367,200
    Credit Suisse Group: $203,750
    Morgan Stanley: $199,800
    HIG Capital: $186,500
    Barclays: $157,750

    See more here:

    • 109 bill January 6, 2012 at 8:28 am

      Thanks QL for the video.While I haven’t any doubt that Paul Craig Roberts is a very bright man and that he works hard but the question for me is “Who is he working for ?” Case in point @ 4:10 of this video,he says “We don’t have anyway to do anything about it ” I wonder what commie told him that ? There are many avenues “citizens ” can take, but it requires some work,self sacrifice and of course
      some inconvenience,but the bottom common denominator,is choking down the
      artful dodgers “money supply” Would this have unintended consequences,Yes it would,but I firmly believe,We can post all the facts we wish,but until we (individually ) are willing to act on them,we may as well take a nap. cheers

  35. 111 bill January 6, 2012 at 2:39 am

    OT but I may sometimes have a strange way of associating events and analogies but here is one.On viewing this,I can imagine Our government as the man with the stick and
    the big cat as the American people.See if you can see it ?

  36. 112 sky January 6, 2012 at 4:18 am

    UN taking over city councils across america

    • 113 Jan January 6, 2012 at 4:50 pm

      Here is a followup to the lady in Colorado. This made me cry

      This is a video of the events that transpired on 12-21-11 in Fort Collins Colorado. UPDATE- On Dec 29th Stacy appeared in court to face charges of “failure to comply”. The Judge declared “NO CHARGE” and her bond was released. If there was no charge, WHY WAS SHE ARRESTED? Citizens across the country are raising money to help her pay $14,000 in court fees. If you would like to help Stacy, send check or money order to: The Benefit of Stacy Lynne Fund, P.O. box 1211 Arvada, CO 80001-1211. Email: For additional info call toll-free: 1-855 Our Rights

      • 114 Quantum Leap January 6, 2012 at 8:54 pm

        They are trying to break her spirit. She needs to stay strong and get creative. Do not play within the box. Why should she follow any of their rules? I’d find a way to nab the boy and disappear to a safe house outside of the state until the boy is fully grown. She could ask obammy how to obtain a false social security card…….(snort)

        If she plays by their made up rules she is sunk.
        Toughen up.

  37. 115 Katie January 6, 2012 at 8:18 am

    Limbaugh and Levin both made headlines yesterday. Hopefully this wakes up some more people. DICTATOR is being used openly now.

  38. 116 Katie January 6, 2012 at 9:24 am

    Wow – a hard hitting piece at American Thinker today.

    “The mask is fully off. Barack Obama is the most corrupt, power-mad president in this nation’s illustrious history. By his actions in bypassing Congress and making appointments that should be subject to Senate approval while the Senate is still in session and innumerable extra-constitutional actions since he became president, he is following in the footsteps of the despots who dominated the 20th century.”

    Read more:

  39. 118 aprilnovember811 January 6, 2012 at 11:44 am

    That’s true. Please read this article from Dr. Jack Wheeler at

    Dr. Wheeler is a former member of the CIA. He also worked for Ronald Reagan. He has a very interesting past, including arm wrestling Putin and winning.

    It’s a little long, but you have to pay $8.95 to sign up and read the entire thing. It’s worth it, but I didn’t know who could or couldn’t afford it.

    Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
    Thursday, 05 January 2012

    Gobsmacked. It’s the word Brits use when they are stunned by something ridiculously astounding. Late Tuesday night (1/03), I was beyond gobsmacked when I heard the results of the Iowa Caucuses. Now it is Thursday (1/05), and I remain profoundly shaken by the stupefying stupidity of the Iowa caucus voters.

    It tells me that Zero’s election in 2008 was no fluke, no spasm of temporary masochistic insanity. That voters are into reality-denial up to their ears. That whatever part of their brain they are using to vote with, it is most assuredly not their ratiocinative part.

    Iowans have no idea what they did to their country Tuesday: they substantially increased the odds that Zero will win re-election in November. It wasn’t Romney or Santorum who won in Iowa. It was Zero who won, hands down.

    I have been just as delusional as Iowa voters in my own way for a long time, so I owe them a soupçon of gratitude for snapping me out of it.

    I should have realized America was in mortal peril when the video went viral of Zero’s preacher, to whom he had listened and followed for 20 years, praying for God to damn America – and instead of it nuking any chance whatever of Zero’s electability, Americans just shrugged it off.

    Yet I chugged on, convincing myself that voters would come to their senses, that it was as impossible as a cat giving birth to puppies for Zero – the most laughably unqualified candidate in presidential history, and the most explicitly Anti-American to boot – to actually be elected. And he was.

    Temporary insanity – that’s what it has to be, I deluded myself. Then came the Tea Parties. Yes! I exulted. The insanity was over, Americans are being Americans again! The overthrow of the Pelosi Congress in the 2010 elections with a Tea Party Congress in its place convinced me more than ever.

    But as 2011 dragged on, and the Tea Party Congress morphed into the Boehner Defund-Nothing Wimp-Out Congress, my conviction faltered.

    During the summer, I read Rick Perry’s book, Fed Up!, which raised my hopes and dashed them at the same time. It advocated exactly what is needed for America to be America again – eliminate the federal government’s unconstitutional powers and programs via the 10th Amendment – yet its author clearly had no intention of running for president. No one with that intention would ever write such unmentionable truths as Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

    Then Perry looked at the Pub field full of folks driven by their ego and oblivious to their inadequacies. He felt a calling, a God-given duty against his desires to do his best to rescue his country from the abyss. It was too soon. He had to have serious back-surgery, the pain medication made him dingy, he said dumb things in the debates, his support melted away and looked elsewhere.

    But there was no elsewhere. Romney was McCain redux, who excited no one, with a ceiling of 25% composed of folks supporting him only because they thought he could beat Zero. Gingrich was a Rockefeller Republican in conservative drag, angry, vindictive, and mean.

    Cain imploded. Bachmann had no qualifications beyond being a nice classy lady with good values who had been in Congress for four years. Paul had a following of folks who thought it no problem if Iran nuked Israel.

    Huntsman was a glowarming Chicom lover. Santorum was an earmarking deficit spender who couldn’t get himself reelected senator, losing by 18% to a Dem neophyte.

    And every other marquee name refused to run – Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, Paul Ryan, and of course, the heartbreaker, Sarah Palin.

    So at 2011’s end, there was no one else – if you wanted a real deal small government 10th Amendment conservative – but Rick Perry, flaws and all. Besides, there isn’t a conservative alive who doesn’t want leftie journalists put in their place like Perry did to Politico’s Mike Allen.

    Iowans thought otherwise. One primary reason is they would rather have their country collapse as long as they keep getting their ethanol money. Perry was the only candidate to clearly say ethanol subsidies and mandates would not exist in his presidency. The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association hammered him on this, and built up Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum, pro-ethanol panderers all.

    So let me tell you about a meeting that could change the world.

    A news story appeared yesterday (1/04) about a meeting of the principal “movement conservatives” in the country to be held “next weekend” to try and unify behind one conservative candidate.

    It will be at the home of Judge Paul Pressler near Houston, Texas, one week from tomorrow, January 13. I’ve known Paul and Nancy Pressler for many years. I know most everyone who will be there, and I expect to be there too.

    There will be strong advocates for Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry. There might even be a Paulista, but probably no one for Huntsman.

    It’s very doubtful they will go for Romney. 75% of Republicans just don’t want him. There’s no enthusiasm, and you can’t win the presidency without it. So much for his “electability” argument.

    Yet this meeting cannot be merely a Stop Mitt conspiracy. It cannot be about preventing a negative. It has to be choosing a positive, uniting behind the best conservative who can defeat Obama and, as president, start actually tearing down the federal monster.

    Gingrich’s anger makes him unelectable. Santorum would be torn to shreds by the Obama media – he’s against contraception for married couples, for Pete’s sake. He’ll be ridiculed to the moon, turning every social value of conservatives into jokes – far more successfully than the left has ever done before.

    Worse, he’s a Big Government conservative who has no intention whatever of dismantling it. Plus he has no executive experience at running anything, not a state, a city council, a corner store. He supported Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey. If he couldn’t get reelected in Pennsylvania, he sure can’t get elected president of the United States.

    Perry passionately advocates the best possible mechanism for reducing the government to its constitutional limits: the 10th Amendment. He has the executive experience to accomplish this, and the best track record in America at job creation and improving an economy. It’s inarguable that he’s the most successful governor in the country.

    He is also passionate about getting the government out of the way of the most revolutionary technology of our day — hydraulic fracturing — that can provide cheap and abundant energy to power our economy, make us energy independent, and destroy the left’s dream of a pre-industrialized America.

    All of this, plus his inspiring personal story, add up to a candidacy to be truly excited about. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum don’t come remotely close.

    I will make this case to those at this meeting, and one final point. This election has an importance far beyond any single issue, no matter how strongly individuals may feel about it, whether that be abortion, illegal aliens, homosexual “marriage,” or whatever.

    The federal government is metastasizing in its power to control our lives, bankrupt our economy, and demolish our freedom as Americans. Zero has accelerated this, with his reelection resulting in a full-blown fascist dictatorship.

    The key point here is that this metastasizing of government has enormous inertia – which will keep right on going unless there is a force strong enough to stop and reverse it. It is absurd to argue that Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum could be that force. It is not absurd that Perry could be.

    The fate of America may well depend on the choice made next Friday. If these conservative leaders unite, positively and enthusiastically, for Perry, it will catalyze conservatives across the country to finally unite — and then small government conservatism will triumph in November. If they do not, it will not. And the odds of four more years of Obama will be very high.

    We need those odds to be very low, and the odds of continued federal fascism even lower. What we most need is someway or someone to snap folks out of the reality-denial trance they’re in, to enable them to be Americans again. I see only one man on the horizon who can do so.

    • 119 heather January 6, 2012 at 12:36 pm

      Well thought out and delivered. Thanks….excellent article and much food for thought.

      If we can’t have RP, I would rather Perry win…we do not want, gingish, romney or santorum for sure.

      But hey, maybe Sarah would jump in–she’s ready this time. She will blow barrys socks off debating him.

    • 120 Tenacity January 6, 2012 at 3:44 pm

      What a crock of bull. Perry has been and is a globalist shill, an agent for the queen, selling private property interests to foreign entities. The guy is for the North American Union and has been lying to the people of Texas and continuing to work on that Mexico to Canada highway. Jack Wheeler has to know this and has shown his true colors. Wheeler obviously works for the bankster establishment.

      • 121 drkate January 6, 2012 at 7:34 pm

        I don’t think Madsen would become a shill for the NWO, based on his past work. This is strategy for them…and by and large he’s right about Perry. None of the Rs can beat obama–not romney, not gingrich, not santorum, not huntsman. They still refuse to consider Ron Paul.

        That said, I agree with you about Perry’s globalist stuff, we have discussed that here. So to me this is the same old, same old, refusing to look at Paul seriously. Just like they’d be doing if Palin was in the race.

  40. 124 aprilnovember811 January 6, 2012 at 11:45 am

    Also from
    Written by Gov. Rick Perry
    Friday, 06 January 2012

    Earlier this week (1/04), the Chicago Tribune ran a little noted editorial on the insider trading scandal plaguing Congress, calling out phony efforts to reform the rules and demanding that we finally put a stop to this outrageous and unethical behavior.

    If you haven’t read the editorial yet, I recommend you do because while the professional political punditry class is more interested in superfluous items like the political horse race and candidate attire, the reality is that members of both parties in Washington, D.C., are abusing their positions and ordinary Americans have had enough.

    As the editorial notes, “’60 Minutes’ reported that Pelosi and her husband participated in an initial public offering from Visa in 2008, just as credit card legislation started moving through the House. The Pelosis bought 5,000 shares at the IPO price of $44 a share. Two days later, the shares traded at $64. The legislation, which was likely to cut credit card company profits, went nowhere that year. It passed two years later.”

    It’s not enough members of Congress make $174,000 a year, some are trading on inside information to use their public service to enrich themselves.

    The Tribune is right, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department should be using every available tool to put a stop to this. But they are not. So, Congress needs to pass the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, HR 1148) as a matter of urgency, to do even more to ensure that this kind of thing is stopped dead in its tracks.

    In addition to calling for tough measures to outlaw insider trading by Members of Congress, I’ve called for making Congress part-time like the Texas legislature, cutting congressional pay in half, and amending FOIA to apply to Congress and the White House.

    We have a $15 trillion national debt that is growing by the day, a direct result of establishment, insider politicians who are more interested in constantly increasing their personal power and profit than in reforming the system, bringing spending under control, and doing the work they were elected to do. It’s time to uproot and overhaul Washington. We can start with ensuring insider trading by members of Congress results in prison time, and not unseemly profits.

    —Rick Perry

  41. 125 sky January 6, 2012 at 11:59 am

    U.S. defense Act 2012 Open ended war alternative column beforeitsnews website

  42. 128 SirLurksAlot January 6, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Several months ago I predicted that Sarah would not enter the presidential race while Michelle Bachmann was still in it. Now she’s not.

    C’mon Sarah help me out here….

    Is there still time?

  43. 132 heather January 6, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    when will congress and the senate do their job and arrest the fool–when its too late?

  44. 133 heather January 6, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    looks like they’re going bye bye into the indefinite detention center if they get caught!

  45. 134 A Crazy Old Coot January 6, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    Off Topic:

    Merck Scientist Admitted Presence of SV40, AIDS and Cancer Viruses in Vaccines
    Posted on January 6, 2012 by A Crazy Old Coot | Edit

    Merck Scientist Admitted Presence of SV40, AIDS and Cancer Viruses in Vaccines

    Infowars Nightly News January 6, 2012

    One of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry – a merck scientist – made a recording where he openly admits the vaccines given to americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses.

    • 135 no-nonsense-nancy January 6, 2012 at 7:53 pm

      i just read “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” and it is a very good read. I heard the author interviewed on Hagmann and Hagmann a few weeks ago and I ordered it right away. They even think possibly that the Drs. in New Orleans who were secretly experiamenting with mice and monkeys created HIV. Salk’s vaccine contained the monkey viruses first and then Sabin’s was developed. He points out that ten year old girls in 1955 who received the polio vaccine turned 40 in 1985 and the annual increase in breast cancer that year was 180,000. He proved that we really have been experiencing a cancer epidemic, possiby as a derect result of the polio vaccine.
      It also ties in with JFK’s assination. I’ll let you guys read the book to get that connection.

    • 136 heather January 6, 2012 at 11:57 pm

      coot–was this from the beginning of the polio shots or what yrs did they lace these vaccines and i guess they are still doing it………so much for autism in this generation—hundreds of thousands of kids have this and they are trying to say its genetic? parents wake up—not every kid can be born with this.

  46. 137 A Crazy Old Coot January 6, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    Fox news just talked about the eligibility case against obama in GA. Something is going on because they have never mentioned it before. Praise God!!

  47. 138 Troy January 6, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    Brett Bairer, on Fox News, finally and correctly reported on the natural born citizenship issue earlier this evening….It was in regards to Carl Swenson’s Georgia lawsuit against Barry…..This is it folks, it’s finally happening.

    Here’s the deal: This is going to the SCOTUS because no matter which side wins, the other side is going to appeal it all the way up the chain….This time the SCOTUS will not be able to kick it to the curb…They will have to hear it and, mark my words, they will crap on the constitution in broad daylight by ruling that Barry is a NBC…..They have no other choice because otherwise John Roberts would be handing himself a prison sentence.

    • 139 cedartree January 6, 2012 at 8:27 pm

      Talk about a conflict of interest.

      Then again, John Roberts screwed up the oath on purpose, what, does he think that distanced himself from it all?

      How are they going to say Obama is a natural born citizen, when he is a naturalized citizen by statutes already on the books. Naturalized citizen and natural born citizen are mutually exclusive.

      • 140 Tenacity January 6, 2012 at 9:44 pm

        And when exactly did S/Ob naturalize? And how old was his mother when he was reportedly born according to Bari’s, ah hmmm, Barry’s own testimony? The only real question is whether he is a citizen. We all know, by his own representations, that he is NOT a ‘natural born citizen.’ Regardless of where he was born or to whom he was born and given that he was adopted by Soetoro, he would have had to naturalize or repatriate to even be a citizen.

        • 141 cedartree January 6, 2012 at 10:23 pm

          As Apuzzo explains, “naturalize” means only that you attain citizenship by statutes. It’s a statutory route to citizenship (article I section 8). Apuzzo says that you can naturalize by oath or you can be a naturalized-at-birth citizen, but in all cases your citizenship is defined by statute, a naturalized citizen by statute.

          Naturalized by statute citizens include 0 or 1 US citizen parents, or 2 US citizen parents if born abroad, this is reflected in the current laws too.

          There are just the two types of US Citizens, naturalized and natural born citizens. What a naturalized citizen is not, is what a natural born citizen is…and that’s 2 US Citizen parents born on US soil.

    • 142 cedartree January 6, 2012 at 8:28 pm

      No, I disagree, the SCOTUS already ruled on the definition of a NBC waaay back in 1875.

      All SCOTUS could do is OVERTURN Minor v. Happersett, Luria, Ark, Elg, etc…that’s pretty hefty portions.

      • 143 Troy January 6, 2012 at 9:42 pm

        And that’s just what they will do.

        • 144 Tenacity January 6, 2012 at 9:55 pm

          nah, they would deny the precedent as not relevant to the present case and not pertinent to Minor decision. They would also say that ‘no doubt of’ is not the same as defining the term of art. Also, they would be getting the case on appeal. At this juncture we don’t know the basis of an appeal and they would not be forced to hear the appeal. Even if the lower court decided against S/Ob, SCOTUS would be temped to let the lower court decision stand rather than step in the quagmire.

          • 145 cedartree January 6, 2012 at 10:27 pm

            ah but now TIME puts Romney, likely also not a NBC at 17 points ahead in South Carolina?
            Then he’ll no doubt get another non-NBC as VP.
            Put that old nasty TREASON stuff to bed…zzzzzzzzzzz

          • 146 cedartree January 6, 2012 at 10:31 pm

            But this comes down to just math, which I don’t see how their rewrites can alter
            2+2=4 still

            So Article I says Congress/Senate must be a Citizen
            and Article II says POTUS must be a NBC
            and Article I Section 8 prescribes routes to becoming a naturalized Citizen by statute
            And SCOTUS says there’s only 2 kinds of US Citizens, a NBC and a naturalized…

            so if Obama is an Article I Section 8 US Code 1401 Naturalized by Statute Citizen (and he is even based on his own phony story) then he mathematically cannot be a NBC since NBC and Naturalized are mutually exclusive by virtue of the contrast between article I and article II.


            • 147 Tenacity January 7, 2012 at 12:41 am

              Cedar, I think you should stick to another topic. Your statements are false and confused. The SCOTUS said no such thing. Native born is not naturalized. Naturalized means you were once not a U.S. citizen and became one. There are at least 4 types of citizenship categories: native born (ius soli or soil), by statute (ius sanguinis or blood) or 14th Amendment, naturalized (choice) and then, the one with no doubt and no divided allegiance, natural born citizen…born on the soil of citizen parents.

              • 148 Tenacity January 7, 2012 at 12:55 am

                Let me elaborate. If Bari/Barry/Barack had been born in Hawaii and his mother had been a qualifying U.S. citizen, then S/Ob would have been native born (not naturalized), but with divided allegiance and thus not NBC. When he was adopted by Soetoro, he surrendered whatever other citizenship he had so he was Indonesian. If he was born in NY and his father was X Shabazz and he was adopted by an Indonesian, he became an Indonesian citizen. When he return to the U.S. he would have had to naturalize to be a U.S. citizen. I don’t believe that happened. So, if he was at one time a U.S. citizen, he gave that up. Natural Born means by no other means (no doubt, no statute, no divided allegiance, no question, no turning back once surrendered), that’s NO OTHER MEANS/Way.

                • 149 drkate January 7, 2012 at 1:19 am

                  Born in Mexico in 1955, father (mexican citizen died); mother regained her US citizenship after she returned to US from 25 years in Mexico; all us kids naturalized at age 18.

                • 150 cedartree January 7, 2012 at 10:16 am

                  Naturalized simply means citizenship acquired by statute, that has to be emphatically emphasized; it does not just mean oath-acquired.

                  There’s been too many terms used, when the two are all that are needed and prescribed.

                  For example, the problem with the word native is that when it’s used as a subject “native” it means a natural born citizen, but when it’s used as an adjective “native-born” it means just born on the soil, so it’s a descriptor ripe for obot misuse, and boy do they.

                  There are only two types of citizens: Natural Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens. Now, many people don’t realize that naturalized doesn’t just mean immigration-take-oath route, it’s again, all forms of acquisition of citizenship by statute.

                  The CRA of 1866 precludes jus soli only citizenship, it was passed twice, again after the 14th amendment. It said if you were born subject to any foreign power you were not a US Citizen at all.
                  Then the Immigration and Naturalization Act seemed to ignore this law and made jus-soli a US Citizen category. How can an Act of Congress (CRA1866) which was never deemed unconstitutional, just have another law slathered on top of it which all but negates it? If one law absolutely contradicts another, doesn’t it have to be deemed unconstitutional?

                  But ultimately all that didn’t change the contrast between naturalized (0 or 1 US Citizen parent born anywhere OR 2 US Citizen parents born abroad) STATUTES. They are all naturalized, some at birth, some are born here (with 1 US Citizen parent) some are not. But all of their “citizenships” are prescribed by statute.

                  Except One: The laws dont’ touch the natural born citizen class, since A)the term is never used in US Law or the 14th and B)the description with 2 US Citizen parents born on US soil is omitted.

                  I suspect those who deviate from what Apuzo describes as trying to obfuscate the issue. It’s better to be concise and accurate

                  Citizen is broad umbrella category
                  Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen are subcategories

                  What Obots did early on was try to redefine naturalized, to confuse. They made “naturalize” out to sound like it only means immigrate/take oath, and by so doing they could lump everything else into “natural born citizen” and argue that just being born in the USA made you a natural born citizen, which of course is utterly wrong. Then the introduction of native vs. native-born and on and on brought more confusion. But their argument fails because the naturalization laws already include what they want to argue, falsely, are natural born citizens…the logic fails them, and they fail at logic.

                  It’s utterly simple already and it’s already in the laws, so they can’t argue with that. All the naturalized citizen laws are spelled out (and they would include what the deliberate-confusers label as native-born, born-citizen, all that stuff), and since no naturalized citizen is a natural born citizen, quite simply anyone who is described by the naturalized citizen statutes cannot be a natural born citizen.

              • 151 drkate January 7, 2012 at 1:15 am

                5 classes of citizenship in US constitution. Ten, Cedar, you are both right.


                • 152 cedartree January 7, 2012 at 10:37 am

                  Citizen can mean either/or or both naturalized and natural born citizens

                  Naturalized citizen can be by oath or a naturalized born citizen by statute.
                  The newer INA says if you’re just born here with 0 or 1 US Citizen parent you’re a stat cit, born of 2 US citizen parents abroad, also a stat cit, and if you’re not born here and have no US citizen parents, you can take the oath…but still all of these are “naturalized US Citizens”.

                  The one permutation omitted,natural born citizen, is only always 2 US citizen parents born on US soil.

                  the problem with the term “native” is that NBCs are natives, and are native-born, but some naturalized/statutory citizens are native-born too, so since the word “native” spans both the pertinent categories it is not an authentic descriptor.

                  • 153 GORDO January 7, 2012 at 12:17 pm

                    From disinformation operatives (they are everywhere) at the Cornell University Law School site:
                    “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

                    “A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States. Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII.

                    Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a “natural born Citizen.” One may also be a “natural born Citizen” if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person’s parents.”
                    [click on ‘For example’]

                    “Bob’s parents are British citizens. Bob is born in Hawaii and is subject to the jurisdiction of that state.

                    Under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (2008), Bob acquires U.S. citizenship at birth. Therefore, Bob is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.”


  48. 154 cedartree January 6, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    Could Osama bin Laden have been any more clear?

    “”Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue—one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice—and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; or [2] payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or [3] the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”
    –Osama Bin Laden
    (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)”
    Beck mis-read the word “suzerainty” as “scrutiny”. Wrong. “Suzerainty” is a French-origin word (“suzerain”) that means “overlordship”. Google it and look it up for yourself. Bin Laden uses exactly the right word in this context.

    Please note that Bin Laden confirms my premise that islam is NOT a religion, but a completely earthly totalitarian political system:

    “force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually”

    “payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam”

    Thank you. Musloids do not give a flying flip if you actually believe any of their pseudo-religious crap. Hell, only the inbred mentally retarded ones actually believe any of that nonsense themselves. Why don’t they care if you actually believe any of it? Why are they satisfied with mere physical submission without any spiritual “submission”? Why are they satisfied with “infidels” merely paying a tax (jizya)?

    BECAUSE IT ISN’T A RELIGION AT ALL. Islam isn’t about “allah” or “paradise” or “prayer” or “spirituality” or how human beings should relate to one another or how human beings should relate to a “god” or the eternal fate of the human soul. THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THAT. Islam is about acquiring physical, earthly territory and installing a totalitarian government over the earth that provides a cadre of “elites” masquerading as some sort of “clergy” with massive decadent wealth and as much twisted perverted sex as they want, including homosexual and heterosexual pedohilia, ephebophilia, concubinage, incest, bestiality and necrophilia. There is nothing new under the sun. They want power, they want money and they want sex. The “religious” aspects are a stone-cold con, which Bin Laden himself declared in no uncertain terms.

    Spread the word.”

  49. 155 A Crazy Old Coot January 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    Eligibility appeal seeks level election playing field

    Current standard ‘denies redress’ when unqualified candidate on ballot

    Bob Unruh @ WND

  50. 157 Quantum Leap January 6, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Britsol quit Hollywood. Does that mean she’s getting ready to help stump for her mum? She better talk about what she’ll do and not about obammy if she is going to run.

    • 158 Quantum Leap January 6, 2012 at 9:23 pm

      Where’s the obots on this NDAA bill? We told them this would happen.

      Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment, to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.

      Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops.

      You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the president. The “American way of life” is defined by our constitution and specifically the bill of rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

      The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush administration.

      There are also those who continue the longstanding effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by blaming either others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens as not just subject to indefinite detention but even to execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.

      The Obama administration and Democratic members are in full spin mode – using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorisation to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

      • 159 Troy January 6, 2012 at 9:28 pm

        If it would’ve been Bush that signed that bill the Obot’s heads would be exploding….Chris Mathews and the rest of the commie MSM would be getting lightening bolts up their legs.

      • 165 Durus January 7, 2012 at 8:43 am

        Text from enrolled bill follows [Source:

        Section 1021 and 1022


        (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

        (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

        (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

        (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

        (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

        (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

        (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

        (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

        (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

        (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

        (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

        (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).


        (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

        (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

        (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined–

        (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

        (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

        (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

        (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

        (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

        (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

        (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

        (c) Implementation Procedures-

        (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

        (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

        (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

        (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

        (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.

        (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

        (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

        (d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

        (e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

        • 166 Durus January 7, 2012 at 9:18 am

          Did Devvy Kidd miss something in her article on the NDAA?

          Again, the language is clear as to who could be detained in both bills. Not U.S. citizens – or did I miss something? If I did and the words ‘does not’ doesn’t mean does not, please let me know. I hate all these massive bills myself and we have to continue to be vigilant 24/7 when it comes to the miscreants in the Outlaw Congress. I don’t trust any of them. I just want to make sure we’re not getting worked up over some provisions in a bill that attacks our God given rights that doesn’t appear to be there.

          • 167 Jan January 7, 2012 at 4:28 pm

            IMHO, I think Devy did get it wrong. The key words in any bill are when they add “and other”.
            Congress made it clear that US Citizens would retain their rights.
            Senate did the same thing. Then obat’s admin said if certain wording was not in the bill obat would veto it. So, it was added back in the final bill that Congress signed. (was Congress aware it was added back in? Probably not as they never read any of the bills, “they are too big to read”.)
            Once the wording was put back in, obat signed it along with a signing statement that he would not enforce that part of the bill. B*** s***

            • 168 Durus January 7, 2012 at 4:50 pm

              Can you show me the wording in the enrolled bill?

              Like Devvy, I don’t see it. However, in the sections everyone is making such a fuss about, I do see the following statements:

              1021, 4, e:

              (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

              1022, 4, b, 1:

              (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

              (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

              (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

              If the wording is in the bill elsewhere, where is it?

  51. 169 Papoose January 6, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    they will know we are Americans by our love.

    by our convictions, our sentiment, our respect for humanity.

    our culture, our heritage, our inane sense of freedom.

    our pride, our joy, our abundance of benevolence for in kind behaviors;

    our Gratitude,

    our Earthly Resource, our Terrain, our Treasury, our Traditions.

    Our Time. 21C

  52. 171 no-nonsense-nancy January 6, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Obama’s swagger. Just as strong, just as powerfull, just as well funded.

  53. 173 A Crazy Old Coot January 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm​montgomery-blair-sibley-81157.h​tml

    Sibley Announces Write-In Candidacy for President of the United States and Sues Obama

    Scion of Prominent 19th Century Political Family Announces Write In Candidacy for President of the United States and Files Quo Warranto suit challenging Obama s natural born Citizen Status Washington..

    Among those “retained” and “reserved” common law rights is: “the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not Wasted.” Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922). Accordingly, Montgomery has filed this day in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a Quo Warranto suit seeking to oust Barrack Hussein Obama II as President of the United States and/or preventing him from holding the franchise of being on the ballot for that office on November 6, 2012, insomuch as he is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, §1, of the U.S. Constitution. There are thus two plain requirements: being born (i) in the United Stats and (ii) of two parents, both of whom must be United States citizens.

    Barrack Hussein Obama, II has represented that he is the son of a non-citizen of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who was a citizen of the United Kingdom in 1961. Moreover, even allowing for a definition of “natural born Citizen” to include one born within the United States to only one United States citizen parent, the significant questions raised by his publically released “Certificates of Live Birth” would nonetheless challenge his eligibility to be President of the United States. A detailed analysis of the apparent tampering with Barrack Hussein Obama, II’s putative “Certificates of Live Birth” is contained in the Quo Warranto lawsuit.

    • 174 Tenacity January 6, 2012 at 10:21 pm

      Are these not strange times we live in? The inane nature of the term “birther” has now been made manifest. The shear number of the lawsuits and now the stature of those filing them have to make this impossible to ignore.

    • 175 Durus January 7, 2012 at 8:12 am


      How Can I Support Montgomery Blair Sibley?

      I will not accept any contributions of any sort for my campaign.

      • 176 Jan January 7, 2012 at 3:59 pm

        Durus, have you read up on him and his beliefs? I find him to be rather a Kook, however if he can pull this off, I’m all for him doing what he says he will to get rid of obat.

  54. 177 cedartree January 6, 2012 at 10:16 pm

    This is just not possible…
    CNN Poll Finds Romney With a 17-Point Lead In . . . South Carolina…
    In another sign of the front runner’s growing strength, Mitt Romney has taken the lead in South Carolina, according to a TIME/CNN/ORC poll released Friday.

    The poll, which surveyed likely primary voters on Wednesday and Thursday, found Romney commanding 37% support, a 17-point gain since early December. He’s not the only one carrying momentum out of Iowa’s photo finish. Rick Santorum has surged 15 points, to 19%, picking up the largest chunk of Newt Gingrich’s shattered coalition. The former Speaker is still in the hunt with 18%, but that’s down from 43% in December.

    Ron Paul’s share has doubled, to 12%, while Rick Perry’s has dwindled to a mere 5%.

    The new data, which come a little more than two weeks before the Palmetto primary, confirm the broader contours of the GOP race. Romney’s solid position is strengthened by the splintering effect produced by his rivals — his 37% support is equal to that of Santorum’s and Gingrich’s combined. The largest remaining threat to Romney is a conservative bloc coalesced behind one candidate.

    As of Friday, that simply isn’t happening. Romney is getting solid shares of born-again Christians (35%), Tea Party supporters (32%) and self-described conservatives (37%). This is, however, South Carolina, notoriously one of the nastiest political battlefields in the U.S., and the anonymous backstabbing, radio spots, church fliers and super-PAC attack ads have yet to saturate the state. And a 49% plurality of likely voters said they are still open to changing their minds. A New Hampshire surprise could tilt expectations. Santorum might just need more time. But for now, everything’s coming up Romney.

    • 178 Tenacity January 6, 2012 at 10:28 pm

      Anything is possible if it is a figment of somebody’s imagination. Time is under the total control of the Luciferian OWO. Why would you believe anything they say? Watch those exit polling numbers as they seem more reliable than the reported caucus counts.

  55. 179 Jan January 6, 2012 at 11:12 pm


    • 180 cedartree January 6, 2012 at 11:30 pm

      Wait, there is a statutory naturalized US citizenship for children born abroad of two US citizen parents. George Romney was not a natural born citizen becausehe was born in Mexico of 2 US citizen parents. BUT he was a naturalized-at-birth US Citizen.

      Here is the law which made him a statutory naturalized at birth US citizen:

      He gets his citizenship via the Immigration and Nationality Act — “by statute.”  
      Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
      (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

      So George couldn’t run for president, but his son Mitt, born in the US can.

      This same law is why McCain was only just a naturalzed statutory citizen at birth and NOT a natural born citizen.

      What a naturalized citizen is not, is what a natural born citizen is: 2 US citizen parents, born on US soil.

    • 187 Tenacity January 7, 2012 at 12:11 am

      Well, you first heard it right here at DrKatesView. Again, the question is, did George Romney naturalize in the U.S. prior to Willard’s birth in 1947. We are waiting for the proof Mr. Romney. No forgeries please. The LDS church is superb at genealogy and records. Let’s see how they do in this case.

  56. 188 Quantum Leap January 6, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    Donor Romney Gingrich Paul Santorum
    National Guard $0 $0 $4,068 $0
    US Air Force $4,400 $4,400 $23,736 $0
    US Army $3,500 $250 $24,503 $250
    US Coast Guard $0 $0 $3,716 $0
    US Dept of Defense $2,150 $0 $9,527 $0
    US Marine Corps $250 $0 $7,662 $0
    US Military $0 $0 $2,083 $0
    US Navy $3,000 $250 $20,272 $500
    TOTAL $13,300 $4,900 $95,567 $750

    • 189 cedartree January 6, 2012 at 11:34 pm

      It’s amazing the minutiae to which the donors can be traced this way, yet Obama gets away with $450 million in foreign donations. This is why he’s pigsniffing around for those $3.00 donors, he needs their names to launder his big stimulus, kickback and foreign monies.

      • 190 Quantum Leap January 7, 2012 at 12:28 am

        Cedartree: You got that right. Or worse yet they lie and say they got 4 million from donors giving $200 or less. That way they do not have to report it. True thing. They are saying obammy raised 4MM in the last month or so with small donations. Liars. The military gave more to Ron Paul than any other candidate including obammy. While the repubs fight it out to win the nomination the ‘new communist demon party’ is creating more unconstitutional bills. Harry Reid is like a pig in a trough. He’s eating it up. He’s a first class commie who doesn’t care for the Bill of Right’s at all. Remember when his wife and kid were in a serious car accident on the freeway and he kept on campaigning for the usurper in Nevada?

        • 191 Tenacity January 7, 2012 at 1:17 am

          Them pre-paid credit cards are something, aren’t they? $199 bucks at a pop can add up. Do you think Soros, Rothschild or the Saudi Prince came up with that little scheme. I think it was his Indonesian (ex-Occidental roomy) money bundler that launched that brilliant circumvention of law. He should have gotten a nice Vatican Bank account for that.

          Reid whacking will be popular this fall.

  57. 193 Quantum Leap January 6, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    You can pick the winner by the donations– here ya go (see above) RP in first place, Mitt in second place, Newt world order in third place and Santorum dead last.

    The the media spin has this election by the balz. We ask for divine intervention for a fair and just election this time.

    Santorum is like obammy……they have identical and perpertual evil smirks on their faces. Both are racists and woman haters. PUKE PUKE PUKE. HEAVE.

    Bet me 5 bucks Santorum is set up by obammy to win the candidacy cause no one likes him and won’t vote for him so obammy wins…PLUS Santorum can’t wait to be president with all the new dictatorial rules in place. Santorum is one dirty bastard. Bet me he got paid off by DNC and obammy to pose as a winner. Watch and see……

    Take nothing for granted peeps. Ask in prayer for a fair and just election. Keep asking. Keep declaring. Only boldness and bold declarations brought down the walls of Jehrico.

    Chanting anyone?

    • 194 Tenacity January 7, 2012 at 12:24 am

      QL, I seldom reply to your comments because there is not much to say other than to agree. In this case however, the walls of Jericho were not brought down by their cadence or boldness or declarations. It was their seemingly silly obedience in faith. Same with Naaman’s leprosy…it wasn’t the water. Same with the Israelites and the serpants…it wasn’t their glare, but their seemingly silly expression of faith. Same with all in Christ…one faith, one body, one baptism.

      Keep them awesome comments and information flowing…you are appreciated.

  58. 195 Quantum Leap January 7, 2012 at 12:39 am

    Well, yes sort of. The faith was manifested in the spoken word. Words have power. They kept circling and chanting louding the spoken word until the walls came down.
    You should try it. That’s why I’m Quantum. Of course justing parroting words doesn’t help. It has to be backed by faith and conviction. Have you heard of the power of NO? If all else fails say NO to the problem. This is no easy task explaining this teaching in depth on a blog. Remember that Jesus used the spoken word and it was made manifest. There is a lesson there. Dig deeper to the meaning of this teaching.
    I’m sure the commie dems know all about the power of the spoken word. 😆

  59. 196 Quantum Leap January 7, 2012 at 12:41 am

    correction: Loudly the spoken word.

  60. 197 Quantum Leap January 7, 2012 at 12:43 am

    One thing you don’t know–I was taught by the nuns and had to attend church daily and instead of art or music we had religion and the bible daily for one hour for 12 years. I know my stuff.

    • 198 heather January 7, 2012 at 7:14 pm

      QL–gotta agree with you, catholics are taught well. My husband too was raised in the catholic schools and church–however when he met me and went to my church decided all on his own to convert from catholic to first baptist. But he knows his Bible inside out there is no denying that.

      Although we practice our faith in our daily lives and still say grace we do not go to church anymore. I came to realize that I didn’t need to worship in a building, I needed to worship from wherever I am.

      Because we dont attend church does not take our raith and christianity from us. No one can take that away.

  61. 200 Quantum Leap January 7, 2012 at 12:45 am

    I am not a catholic anymore though.

    • 201 Tenacity January 7, 2012 at 1:23 am

      Well, that was obvious. You would have chewed my derriere long ago had you been, but the obvious thing is a joke. What’s obvious to one may not be to another and sometimes it turns out to be wrong. So when 20/20 hindsight kicks in, its obvious.

  62. 202 Tiger 7 January 7, 2012 at 8:48 am

    Surprise!, Surprise!! The judge in Hawaii scheduled Taitz’s next hearing the same day that she has to be in Georgia. Guess bho attended to a little business while on “vacation”.

  63. 203 Kathy January 7, 2012 at 8:58 am

    Not sure if this has been posted here before, but I have not seen this before.

    A little something for those who still believe Ron Paul knows nothing about Foreign Policy. Note the date April 24, 2002.

  64. 205 DABIGRAGU January 7, 2012 at 11:46 am

    Why the Warmongering Media Fears a Ron Paul Presidency
    1st guy: “…We’ve shown, we’ve proved (misspoke), we’ve proved over the last ten years or etc., repeatedly that we only do one at a time. We can fight two wars.”

    2nd guy: “This is all get’n interrupted when he’s, Ron Paul becomes President”

    Woman laughs

    1st guy: “See, see this room? Two-thirds of us laid off when Ron Paul is President”

    Guys laughing

    2nd guy: “…two more doctors visit… since before Obama was born”

    Woman: [inaudible]

    1st guy:”Well World War II. We fought two wars [inaudible] that’s where it comes from [inaudible] fully mobilized country [inaudible]”

    Woman: [inaudible]

    CSPAN announcer: “We are live again at the Pentagon this morning where President Obama is expected to talk about the defeat (misspoke) defense strategic…[end of clip]”

    • 207 DABIGRAGU January 7, 2012 at 12:12 pm

      This literally made me ill. Good for the info but need some Pepto…

    • 208 heather January 7, 2012 at 6:51 pm

      What a freakn idiot–that was deliberate on McCains part–remember when he was campaigning and the woman told him she didn’t like barry he was an arab muslin and McCain said he was a good man? Hmmm–makes one wonder then like now about McCain.

  65. 209 Durus January 7, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Latest from Donofrio…

    The McCreery v. Somerville Funeral – Maskell And Gray To Attend – Minor v. Happersett To Preside.
    Posted in Uncategorized on January 7, 2012 by naturalborncitizen


    Grab a cup of java, put your thinking caps on, kick back and relax. We are going to be here for a while. Focus. Below, you will be privy to a true and proper revision of United States Supreme Court history.

    Read more:

  66. 212 Durus January 7, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    Ron Paul, Rand Paul
    The dangerous new ‘Paul-iticians’ of the Tea Party
    – Judi McLeod Saturday, January 7, 2012

    imageJust at the very moment when a beleaguered America needs it least, the Tea Party Movement is serving up ‘Paul-iticians’ with what many thought were merely crumpets.

    Incredibly, the Ron Paul/Rand Paul ‘Paul-iticians’ are even worse than the garden variety ones, who made going to Congress getting rich.

    Read more:

    • 213 Tenacity January 7, 2012 at 4:14 pm

      That has to be the worst and most untimely article I’ve ever seen Judi publish. She is reacting to the MSM mantra question and not even making herself clear.

  67. 214 Jan January 7, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    There are several videos posted here:
    ‘The Romney Con’ is now available to watch on NIA’s video page:

  68. 217 Jan January 7, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    As they work their way around the world, doing to others what they will eventually do to us. obat and hillary have to be stopped, they will sing and we will have names of their pupet masters. Or is that just in my wildest dreams?

    The IMF and US African Command (AFRICOM) Join Hands in the Plunder of the African Continent

    By Nile Bowie

    URL of this article:

    • 218 heather January 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm

      The IMF is nothing but a global money laundering, power grabing made up agency, so unconstitutional, so underhanded. Where in our constitution does it say we need to establish all of these agencies that have come into existence from the criminals that hold us all hostage?

      These money hungry, power wantabees are nothing more than outlaws that have destroyed our way of life. Made up agencies that act against Americans to make us all think that we as americans are promoting freedom and wealth around the world to those 3rd world countries that don’t have the ability to maintain any lifestyle other than poverty. Little did we all know these illegal agencies did nothing but powder their own pockets, while keeping and supressing the poor everywhere.

      And just when we are told by the lying media this or that about this country or that countrys leaders, they assassinate and cause devastation and mass murder.

      War on drugs? doesn’t exist–the only war on drugs is for them to intercept these drugs and sell them for massive profit and they again pocket the cash.

      War on terror? MHO is nil–the only terrorists are those embedded deep inside our own government, only to be named when they decide its time for a false flag to keep us terrorized longer.

      Not one of these politicians are worth the air they breath–matter a fact they are stealing our air, our water, our natural resources that have been given to us by GOD.

      When we vote we must take them out and never let them return–to include family members. We can only allow them all 1 term only, never lifetime thefts.

      Perry is right when he says he would only allow congress to work part time. The constitution does not require these thieves full time jobs and full time paychecks.

  69. 219 Jan January 7, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    Rep Kelly on the floor

  70. 221 no-nonsense-nancy January 7, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    Can we run him for president?

  71. 226 Joan Htwe January 21, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Well man breasts are such a problem, I’ve gone over and bookmarked this at so that my house mates can read it too. I just took The Man Who Couldn’t Beat Obama Endorses the Man Who Couldn’t Beat McCain drkatesview as the entry title in my book mark as I figured if it is good enough for your title on your blog post, then you prob would like to see it book marked the same style.

Comments are currently closed.

January 2012
« Dec   Feb »

Recent Comments

Get Your Copy at

All Pets Haven

Blog Archives

Just follow copyright law and nobody gets hurt!

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

drkatesview thanks you!

Since 8/15/09


Listen to drkate’s Revolution Radio

RSS Big Government

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

RSS American Thinker

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

RSS Atlas Shrugs

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

RSS American Spectator

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

%d bloggers like this: