Just how stupid has this nation become?



If the video below in any way reflects the mental capacity of the average American, we’re in big trouble. The folks interviewed appear to be incapable of reading English.

Well, one guy can – and he still doesn’t know if Obama is a Keynesian.

The Keynesian theory of economics became the norm after the Great Depression and the Second World War. It is the centralized, collectivist government approach to a managed economy. It is the philosophical core of a fiat paper money system manipulated by the bankers and their cartel, the Federal Reserve.

Millions of Americans are clueless when it comes to economics. Public schools do not teach students how modern collectivist economics works.

That’s why we have to stop calling Obama a Keynesian. He was born in Hawaii, after all.

Thanks to Karen De Coster for finding this very revealing video.



I don’t whether to laugh or not at this.  But it just shows you how out of touch the teacher’s unions and the Jew Banksters who support them are with reality!


You gotta love this headline even if it is from the Cartoon News Network

TRENDING: Ron Paul wins both tallies at GOP straw poll in Iowa

And dig the numbers.


In the Iowa voters result, Paul took 82%. Following him were Herman Cain with 14.7%, Rick Santorum with 1%, Newt Gingrich with 0.9%, Michele Bachmann with 0.5%, Rick Perry with 0.5%, Gary Johnson with 0.2%, with Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman 0%.


The Revolution posted at this article, which will be ignored by the Operation Mockingbird/Military/bankster Media Complex…


82% No matter how you slice it, that’s impressive.


To say the least.

Your SATURDAY dose of The Judge

This time…no more Freedom of Information Act?!


Has Orly Jumped The Shark?

Well that’s the impression I get on Dr. Taitz at least based upon what Van Irion, Lead Counsel for the Knoxville, TN-based Liberty Legal Foundation had to say.

A letter posted to Birther Report stated how frustrated Irion is with Dr. Taitz and her way of handling the greatest threat to our republic.

Her conclusions are also wrong for several reasons. First, we have other FEC-registered candidates as class members that are running as independents. Therefore they will be part of the general election.

Second, she mistakenly assumes that standing requires a plaintiff to be in exactly the same position as a defendant. In this case she claims that only a candidate on the ballot in the general election will have standing. This is simply wrong. Standing requires a plaintiff to show that they will be harmed, in a particular way that is not speculative. Any candidate running in the election will be less likely to win if their opponent appears on the ballot. This is true whether the plaintiff appears on the ballot or not. This harm is not speculative, it is certain. She mistakenly equates the speculative nature of winning an election with the certain nature of the harm. The harm of lowering a candidates chances of winning is certain. Courts cannot simply conclude that a candidate has no chance of winning without throwing out the entire purpose of holding democratic elections.

Third, Orly assumes that standing can be disproven simply because many plaintiffs have standing. This is also wrong. Standing is proven if a plaintiff can show that he will be harmed. This analysis doesn’t require the harm to be limited to a small number of people. Courts don’t like standing that any citizen can assert, but 250 FEC-registered Presidential candidates is not the same as 330 million American taxpayers. By Orly’s argument, her military members didn’t have standing because there are “too many” members of the military. Such an argument runs contrary to her own assertions.

Fourth, different courts rule very differently on standing depending upon the specific circumstances. Since no court has ruled on exactly these facts, especially with a class of FEC-registered candidates with different circumstances, to dismiss our case out of hand without even reading the complaint puts Orly in the same category as the corrupt judges that she complains about in her blog. I agree that the courts are corrupt, but that is no excuse to treat others that are striving for the same goals as poorly as the corrupt courts have treated Orly. She owes us an apology.

Fifth, Orly states that filing this as a class action has no purpose. This is also wrong. As mentioned above, by filing this as a class action we end up with more plaintiffs which leads to more individual circumstances likely to have standing. Any specific facts that the defendants or the court claim to be “good enough” for standing will likely be met by SOMEONE in our class action. If only one plaintiff has standing, ALL the others get to proceed. Rather than taking the time to consider this, or better yet, ask, Orly simply makes another incorrect assumption and blogs to the world. Also, by filing our case as a class action we give voice to all of the disenfranchised people that want to be represented. Finally, any judge seeing 30,000+ plaintiffs is less likely to simply dismiss their complaints. None of these reasons were perceived by Orly. Nor did she ask. Again, she owes us an apology.

I do have some suggestions for Mr. Irion…try people like Phil Berg or Mario Appuzo.  Leo Donofrio might give you some arrogant resistance.  And if you want to know how ridiculous an excuse Standing is, may I suggest this 2008 article from Edwin Vieira, Dr. Constitution as I call him.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.

Bold–my emphasis.  Or of course we could think the way Obot turned phony Republican plant Jon Huntsman thinks as he Declares The Constitution Nonsensical AND Calls 65% of S.C. Republican Voters Fringe

I mean, even Kevin DuJan of Hillbuzz told Andrea Shea King last night about Huntsman playing the possible third party spoiler, despite reports of Texas Liberty Icon Ron Paul indicating he wouldn’t rule out the third party run himself if the establishment neocon warhawk GOP screws him royally.

Col Sellin to Obama and Company…

YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION…AND THAT INCLUDES YOU KARL ROVE!  Recently Retired Army Colonel Lawrence Selling recently appeared on Tru News radio.



Sellin wrote recently in a commentary bashing Rove (and rightly so) picked up by Birther Report…


Rove cares little about the Constitution, the rule of law or the country. He is only interested in winning elections because each election he wins increases his power, prestige and the size of his financial portfolio.

Rove is part of the Republican establishment, who long ago decided that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will be their Presidential candidate in 2012 and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) will be chosen for the Vice Presidency.

Romney has the mega-money backers and a national campaign organization, key factors in winning any presidential race.

Rubio brings considerable benefits to the ticket because of his strength in the critical state of Florida, by his perceived conservatism and by his ability to swing Hispanic votes to the Republican Party.

So, it is understandable that Rove does not want the American people to know that Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, is not eligible for the office of Vice President or President.

To that end, Rove has begun to use the same method, “Rules for Radicals” Rule 5 – “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon,” that Barack Obama acquired from radical socialist and community organizer Saul Alinsky.

On Fox News recently, Rove, in an apparent leap of desperation, attacked Texas Governor Rick Perry for responding innocuously to questions regarding Barack Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for the Presidency. Rove said:

“You associate yourself with a nutty view like that, and you damage yourself,” Rove said. “And I know he went and he’s trying to cultivate — as all of them are — Donald Trump, in order to get his endorsement, but this is not the way to go about doing it, because it starts to marginalize you in the minds of some of the people whom you need in order to get the election.”

“There’s a simple answer,” Rove continued. “Yes, he was born in the United States, yes, he is eligible to serve, and don’t associate yourself with sort of this nutty fringe group.”

Rove did that for two reasons; to undermine Perry’s campaign and to protect Rubio.

He is also trying to destroy Herman Cain’s candidacy because Cain is an outsider, not a member of the Republican establishment and is a potential challenger to Rubio as a candidate for Vice President.

Like Obama, Rove is now apparently mounting his own disinformation effort regarding the Constitutional requirements for the office of President and Vice President.

In response to a viewer’s criticism regarding his Fox News comments, Rove mimics the tactics of Obama supporters by deliberately obscuring the difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” and intentionally misinterpreting the binding Supreme Court precedent of Minor vs. Happersett (1875).

Rove wrote:

“No court has ever held that someone born on US soil to a US mother is anything other than a US citizen. The case you cite (Minor) dealt with the question of whether a woman was entitled to the right to vote, not whether she was a “natural born citizen.” However, the court did (in a over dictum) hold “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. competently explains the misleading tactics used by Obama defenders and ostensibly now also being used by Herr Rove.

“They must and do attack the Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) decision on two fronts. First, they argue that the definition of a ‘natural-born citizen’ given by the Court is dicta and therefore not binding precedent. But they are wrong. In Minor, the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether Virginia Minor, a woman, was a ‘citizen’ in order to determine whether as a ‘citizen’ she enjoyed a constitutional right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV. So the Court reasoned that once she was shown to be a ‘citizen,’ it did not matter that she was a woman, unless Missouri could still disqualify a woman from voting because being a ‘citizen’ did not guarantee any person the right to vote. It does not matter whether the Court chose to say that Minor was a ‘natural born Citizen’ or just a ‘citizen.’ Either way, Virginia Minor would advance to the next step in the analysis which was whether as a ‘citizen’ she had the right to vote which Missouri could not abrogate. The Court chose the ‘natural-born citizen’ path. It thoroughly analyzed and considered what a ‘natural-born citizen’ was and after saying that it is a child born in the country to citizen parents, found that Virginia Minor was a ‘natural-born citizen’ and therefore also a ‘citizen’…”

Rove is not only wrong, but disingenuous. There is no ambiguity. Neither Barack Obama nor Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen and, therefore, they are ineligible for the Presidency or Vice Presidency, respectively.



Your Daily Dose of The Judge


REPEAL IT!!!!!!!!!!

Dice in CT

Well by phone. Mark Dice made an appearance on WPKN Radio in Bridgeport, CT. It’s a city that really needs to have Mark visit it. Bridgeport, known for its crime and mayoral corruption, is the largest city in CT. And thanks to its ineptitude in running its polling places the city that elected Dannel Malloy as governor of this piss poor state!