18 votes

BUSTED! U.S. Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) does not live in Kansas anymore but claims he does

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) does not live in Kansas anymore.

"This explosive news has the potential to change the outcome of the Republican primary election between Pat Roberts and his conservative challenger, Dr. Milton Wolf (R-KS).

The new investigative report reveals that Roberts does not live in the Kansas home that he has falsely listed as his residence for more than 15 years. He actually lives in Alexandria, Virginia near Washington, DC..." (More at the link below)
Just another establishment republican LYING RAT who CLAIMS to live in Kansas, but actually lives the high life in D.C.

This "lonely recliner" (which Roberts keeps in a rented office to make it LOOK like he lives there) illustrates the mentality of these lying rat bastard politicians. And it shows how republicans are every bit as immoral as democrats.

When our founders set up our government, our representatives were meant to be "citizen statesmen" where they only went to Washington a few times a year but lived most of the time in their OWN localities so they could be the voice of the people from there.

But these bastards think that just because they win a seat in congress, that they are high above us and can live the good life in D.C. - completely out of touch with the people who elected them.

This rat should not only lose the primary - he should be CHARGED with a crime of mis-representing where he lives in order run for this office.

The immorality and evil of these rats is beyond belief and it is facilitated and sanctioned by the GOP and RNC.

At least he has a (supposedly) conservative opponent.

Story here...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Back during the Iraq War...

...Roberts made himself infamous when he wrote a column published in the state's largest newspaper advocating torture. On that day, he revealed himself to be a monster.

In the following election, no one challenged him in the GOP and the Dems ran a ringer (a failed congressional candidate/now DC lobbyist).

Six years later, finally he is being challenged, but, while I love the ads (for the most part), why does the challenge come from an Obama cousin? That leaves me a bit squeamish...that, and his complaint that "Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism," which may be code for "I am a neocon when it comes to foreign affairs and defense."

Got to give him credit for the "recliner" ad, though. That one makes a mockery of Roberts' "connecton" with his "home state."

Curiously, Roberts has never been connected. He's a DC retread. Before he was elected to Congress, he was a Congressional aide to the Congressman he succeeded. And before that, he was the son of C. Wesley Roberts, RNC Chairman under Eisenhower. He's a second generation DC party hack, in other words.

It won't matter. Here in Indiana

Richard Lugar has lived in Washington DC for 15+ years and used a fake address in Indiana to get elected. It was fully exposed last election cycle and while technically legal I thought for sure he would lose based on this lie.

But he won because the sheeple recognize his name on the ballot.


WTF?? What the hell are you talking about?

Richard Lugar lost his primary to Richard Mourdock. Richard Mourdock ended up losing the election to that Democrat scumbag Joe Donnelly, who use to be a congressman for District 3 (my district). Jackie Walorski is now the congresswoman for District 3, and isn't much better than Donnelly.

Are you sure you're from Indiana? How the hell can you not know that that giant douche bag slack jawed moron Lugar lost?

I'm a Kansan

This state is run by the same gangsters that run DC... this may cost this guy his job, but he'll be replaced by another gangster. Maybe red team, maybe blue team... but it won't matter. This place is entirely under the control of the Bush-Clinton Gang.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

You got that one pretty close

You got that one pretty close Dorothy. Milton Wolf sounds like a republican wannabe circa 2008. Tired load of ca ca and he actually believes it.

fake left & fake right hold the power

There's the Obama-Mama camp... old money, old ties... then there's the Koch front which is also halfway old money... both fake sides are well-controlled here.

(Funny side-story, when my dad was a young man he worked selling suits at a high-end specialty shop in Kansas City. An older man wearing overalls and a torn t-shirt under them came into the store and wanted to buy two extremely expensive suits and wanted to set up a charge account. My dad looked at the guy and thought it seemed out of place for a guy dressed like this to be requesting a charge account so casually for such a large purchase... anyway, the guy was Fred C. Koch... my dad's boss explained who he was and my dad asked him, "How do you make so much money in the oil industry?" His response was "The wheel goes round and round, the pumps go up and down...")

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

Well said Popfree

You certainly would know.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

What does this mean? Article 1 3.3

Article 1 3.3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and "who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

Free includes debt-free!

It's confusing

because it is a double negative. The requirement is that they not NOT be an inhabitant. This is confusing because of how the sentence is separated and the wording used at the time. If you write it out as "No person shall be a Senator who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state (etc.)," it becomes a little more clear that it is requiring you to live in the state.

It's CLEAR that our founders meant for elected officials to...

...live close to the people they represent and only meet in Washington as the Constitution outlines.

Not to live the plush, high life in D.C. and spend their time visiting with lobbyists who have their own interests and profit motives in mind.

We know the spirit and intent of the way our government was set up.

And a little reading about how congress did business back then clears it up pretty quickly.

So people like this republican rat can interpret the Constitution any way he wants but that is NOT what was intended by the framers of our government.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul


I guess the Constitutional convention could not afford competent grammarians?

Free includes debt-free!

The requirement seems to apply "when elected",

not afterwards.



Give them an inch and they take a mile. We need to keep a close eye on them. ALL OF THEM!

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.