All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
Exclusive video: Over-worked Wuhan funeral home staffer reveals real death toll of coronavirus
Subtitled in english
A bit tedious but the lengthy interview eventually reveals some rough details about the numbers of dead and how officials document and count deaths due to this coronavirus.
China has replaced its top officials in central Hubei province and its capital, Wuhan, the epicenter of a viral outbreak that has infected more than 45,000 people worldwide. https://t.co/HtrYLt6jxy
China has reported 254 new daily deaths and a spike in new daily virus cases of 15,152, after new methodology was applied in the hardest-hit province of Hubei as to how cases are categorized. https://t.co/c4T6BwWKjU
AN UNEXPLAINED fog hanging over the coronavirus city of Wuhan is being blamed on Chinese authorities burning thousands of infected corpses.
The fog, or smog, has once more triggered fears the real coronavirus death toll inside Wuhan is massively higher than the 1,100 the Beijing government has admitted to.
Clips appear to show the city shrouded in smoky fog which residents say has “come out of nowhere”.
The videos have triggered theories the smog is the result of smoke from Chinese crematoriums burning coronavirus-infected bodies “24 hours a day”.
Today as I returned from Detroit, I had a moment that I truly felt was God sent, as I don’t believe in coincidences. It happened on one of my flights, and it was two hours I will never forget.
I was seated beside someone who personally knew one of the men who was there on the roof in Benghazi. This person was excited to share with me the “ground truth” of what happened September 11, 2012.
My seat mate drew schematics to orient me to the “time and spacing” and the direction of the attack. I learned about the repeated orders to the men at the CIA annex to stand down and do nothing — thank God two of them, Glenn Doherty and Ty Woods, lived up to their code of honor and ran to the sound of the guns, resulting in their loss of life — but the preservation of life for others, their fellow Americans.
I learned about the proximity of the staging area of the attack to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and the attackers were indeed Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-Qaida. I came to understand why Ambassador Chris Stevens was there in the first place and that he had in fact requested better security but was denied – the question is, by whom? And I learned that the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade were in charge of security and were the ones who opened the gates, then fled.
I learned there are those who are being threatened with their pensions being cut off if they come forth to speak.
And I learned, as I presumed, that there was a covert weapons scheme going on in Libya, Benghazi. We had been supplying radical Islamists with weapons against Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi, effectively supplying the enemy and destabilizing that country. And it seems that there was a CIA weapons buy-back program, the aim of which was to ship the retrieved weapons out of Libya through Turkey, and to the Islamist forces in Syria.
Benghazi and the operations in Libya are shrouded in a fog of lies, deceit, manipulation, threats, intimidation, coercion, abandonment, and worst of all, potentially treason.
No, it was not about a kidnapping scheme, it was about something, as I’ve stated, that will make Iran-Contra look like Romper Room. The web of lies spun is coming apart, and all other committee hearings on this matter should be shut down.
The House has established a Select Committee — quite telling that the same has not been done in the Senate — and those involved, to include the President, MUST appear before Rep. Trey Gowdy.
And to those Democrats appointed to the committee: if you seek to obstruct the revelation of the truth, you are complicit and guilty as well.
Am I afraid because of what I now know? Heck no. I’m honored to have been entrusted, so I for one can be on the right side of history.
Eric Holder has demonstrated that "Contempt of Congress" means nothing to friends of Obama. Holder has been in Contempt of Congress for almost two years, and there is no result at all.
Lerner will do the same.
From Fox:
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.
The House voted 231-187 for a resolution holding Lerner in contempt.
Lerner’s case will now be sent to the Justice Department, which then must decide whether to essentially prosecute Lerner in the case.
House GOP leaders have said Lerner’s testimony is important to fully investigate the scandal, in which IRS agents singled out Tea Party nonprofit applications for extra scrutiny.
“Thorough investigations by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee as well as the Ways and Means Committee have revealed findings that indicate that Ms. Lerner played a central role in the illegal targeting of conservative groups by the IRS,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said in a memo last month.
Last May, Lerner refused to answer questions at a hearing about IRS agents singling out Tea Party applications. She again refused to answer questions in March, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The House Oversight Committee voted to hold Lerner in contempt last month. All Republicans voted in favor and all Democrats voted against.
Lerner directed the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. She retired from the IRS last fall, ending a 34-year career in the federal government, including work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission.
When insurgents attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, last fall, Col. George Bristol held a key post in the region. As commander of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara, he was in a position to know what options the U.S. had to protect Americans under fire.
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the Sept. 11 attacks, sparking national outcry and a congressional investigation examining the lack of protection. Several U.S. officials have testified before Congress since — but not Bristol, a salty Marine whose task force was responsible for special operations in northern and western Africa.
Defense Department officials have told members of Congress that Bristol cannot be forced to testify because he retired after stepping down during a March change of command ceremony, according to several media reports. The Pentagon reinforced that point of view to Marine Corps Times on Tuesday [July 16, 2012].
“Col. Bristol was not invited by Congress to testify before he retired,” said Air Force Maj. Robert Firman, a spokesman with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “The DoD has cooperated fully with Congress and the Accountability Review Board since the beginning of this investigation, and we will continue to do so.”
That isn’t the case, however. While Bristol is preparing for retirement, he is on active duty through the end of July, said Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marine spokeswoman, on Wednesday. He will be placed on the inactive list on Aug. 1, she said. That contradicts statements that Pentagon officials have issued to both Congress and the media....
The Obama administration is one big nest of liars.
UPDATE: "Pentagon does about-face on key Benghazi witness, makes Marine colonel available to talk to Congress."
I just got notification of my new health-insurance premium amount.
A 25% rate hike, and I barely ever use the policy, a policy of a catastrophic nature with zero pharmacy coverage and a high deductible.
Didn't Obama say that the reforming health insurance according to ObamaCare would keep health-insurance costs down?
Pfffft.
To top it all off, my longtime physician (not a gold digger by any means) is now advising that his patients pay $40.50 every month so as to have the guarantee of timely appointments, access to medical records and referrals at no additional charge, and quick responses to emails and phone calls.
Friday, October 12, 2012
JOE BIDEN FLAT-OUT LIED ABOUT HIS VOTES ON THE WARS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ
Somehow, I believed he MUST be telling the truth. After all, how could he have expected to get away with such an outright lie.
When he said it, I thought, "Well, this doesn't gibe with my memory, but, ok."
Turns out he was, indeed, outright lying to the American people, on an issue that is so easy to fact-check, even the Palace Guard Media couldn't find a way to get it wrong ...
I think.
From Ace:
“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”
“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”
Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”
And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.
The one thing they told this drunken buffoon not to do is to spin some grandly self-serving lie about an important issue which could be easily disproven.
It was like having an argument with your drunk, blowhard, dullwitted uncle at Thanksgiving. And your drunk blowhard dullwitted uncle, who is superior to you only in age, keeps asserting he's right about everything by shouting "I WAS THERE!!!"
Fact or Fiction?: 1001 Muslim Inventions Comes to Washington D.C.
National Geographic Explorer’s Hallin Washington D.C. has hosted some of the most prestigious exhibits in America. Previous exhibits have included the Chinese terracotta warriors, as well as theJames Caird, the lifeboat Sir Ernest Shackleton miraculously sailed from Antarctica to South Georgia Island in 1916. Currently it is hosting a curious exhibit through February 2013 entitled “1001 Inventions: Discover the Golden Age of Muslim Civilization.” This high tech, slickly produced exhibit explicitly seeks to debunk the “myth” that the dark ages were dark.
The exhibit purports to provide examples of innovations from Muslim civilization, and some of the claims may come as a surprise to those familiar with the Wright Brothers or Yuri Gagarin.
I recently visited “1001 Inventions” which was housed on the same floor as a fantastic Titanic exhibit. I purchased entry to the museum at a ticket booth staffed by Rebecca Head, a National Geographic employee. Perhaps assuming I was heading to see the Titanic exhibit, Head pushed attendance at 1001 Inventions – “There is a really great exhibit on Muslim inventions you should see.”
The exhibit begins with star power – a short movie starring Academy Award-winner Ben Kingsley. Kingsley plays a librarian who faces a trio of young uniformed (presumably British) students seeking information about “the dark ages.”
Kingsley’s character bristles at the children’s characterization, critical of those “filling your head with such nonsense and ripping down the good of former civilizations.”
But “everyone knows the Greeks and Romans invented everything!” one child replies.
Kingsley’s librarian doesn’t equivocate – “some of the most important discoveries” were made by “Muslim civilizations.”
Harry Potter-style magic takes over, and Kingsley is transformed with beautiful flourish from an English librarian into the exotic turban wearing historical figure of Al-Jazari. The children are enthralled, both on the screen, and in the audience.
Al-Jazari informs the three children that a grand civilization “that stretched from Spain to China” was responsible “for some of the most important discoveries” in the world. These include, according to Kingsley’s transformed Al-Jazari, devices such as the camera.
And herein lies the most fascinating characteristic of the entire exhibit – the slipperiness of its language. Indeed, language throughout the exhibit, as we shall see, becomes a way to trick attendees. Cleverly chosen words nudge readers toward unsupported conclusions. Myth mingles with science. Rumor becomes history.
Consider the “invention” of the camera. Al-Jazari, portrayed masterfully and magically on screen by Kingsley, says “he” was responsible for explaining “how our eyes work” and developed camera obscura. Even if it is historically accurate that Al-Jazari pioneered camera obscura, the slithery language of the screenplay generates an inference that Al-Jazari is somehow legitimately involved in the chain of inventions culminating in my Nikon 35mm.
I was reminded of George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language when he wrote: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
Kingsley’s Al-Jazari fulfills Orwell’s warning in the film when he introduces another Muslim inventor, Abbas Ibn Firnas, who “dared to dream man could fly 1000 years before the Wright Brothers.”
Outside the theater, Firnas is featured in a flight exhibit. Firnas is “said to be the first person who tried to fly. His first attempt which has passed into legend took place when he leapt from the minaret of the Great Mosque in Cordoba. Equipped with a glider with wooden struts, he managed to fly and landed more or less unharmed. [His] next flight was more ambitious. From the top of a nearby hill, he launched himself and his flying machine, apparently gliding for some distance before falling, a problem blamed on the lack of a tail.”
Notice all of the tricks of language. He was the first “who tried to fly,” and “passed into legend,” “more or less unharmed,” the “flying machine,” (implying moving parts), and “apparently gliding for some distance.” Naturally he also diagnosed that that cause of his failure was the want of a tail. The exhibit neglects to inform us about whether he applied this fix to his “machine.”
The exhibit also features an interactive game for children where they can help Firnas fly by flapping their arms.
This all might seem harmless, but consider the argument I had with my 8-year-old after leaving the exhibit. She was convinced that the Wright Brothers were not the first to fly, and instead it was Firnas launched from the mosque at Cordoba a millennium ago. This would not be the only instance when thought corrupted the language of the exhibit, which in turn corrupted thought, at least among the more impressionable.
The short introductory film with Kingsley playing Al-Jazari goes on to tell the three on-screen students (and the many children in the theatre) that the 1001 inventions include medical devices, ideas or unspecified things which somehow led to the compass and GPS satellite navigation and the very Industrial Revolution itself.
Al-Jazari hands the children a book called “1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in Our World” and urges them plainly to “spread the word.
Tom Holland's 'Islam: The Untold Story' documentary in the UK has unleashed a firestorm of criticism by Muslims in England and Europe. Muslims claim the documentary about Islam, by the noted left-leaning historian and liberal, is false and that it is islamophobic.
Michael Coren and Canada's Sun TV talk about how thin skinned Muslims are about any questioning of Islam or investigation of any historical context regarding Islam or Islamic text that questions Islam.
Holland has been met with criticism and even death threats.
This is your future any Canadian, America, United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Ireland, English, India, China and Russa.
Never let it be said the New York Times is afraid to tackle an unflattering story about President Obama, even if it’s often a delayed reaction. The paper’s political blog The Caucus deigned to notice today that the new biography of the president by David Maraniss uncovered the fact that much of Dreams From My Father, the highly praised Barack Obama autobiography, is either fabricated or exaggerated. The Times’s Michael Shear opines that having its author now sitting in the White House has brought Dreams more scrutiny than its author could have envisioned when he wrote it in 1995. But the problem with contemporary analyses of the questionable personal history in the book is not so much the peril associated with being a famous political author but whether the book provides proof of a pattern of falsehoods and distortions about his past that has been one of the hallmarks of the president’s public career.
The answer to that question is contained near the bottom of the piece in which Shear lets drop that proof of such a pattern was already provided by his own newspaper last year. Though the Times buried the story when it broke and then never followed up or editorialized on the scandal, it was their own reporter Janny Scott whose research on the life of the president’s mother Ann Dunham revealed that the oft-told story of her dying because of the failure of her health insurance company to pay for her cancer treatmentwas a flat out lie. But while Shear is right that this year’s election will not turn on how Maraniss’s book is received, the unwillingness of the Times and other mainstream publications to call out Obama for writing fiction and calling it autobiography gives us a good indication of how much of an advantage having a quiescent media is for an incumbent president.
The fables Obama seems to have told about his alienation, his girlfriends and the rest of his over-intellectualized voyage of self-discovery actually pale in comparison to the whopper he told when running for election in 2008 that his mother died because she had been denied coverage and treatment of her disease. Scott revealed that in fact the expenses relating to her cancer had been paid by her insurance. Though she had a separate and totally unrelated dispute relating to disability coverage, Scott’s research proved that Obama’s statement during the 2008 presidential debate was fiction:
For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.
It bears repeating that the president knew this account was false because he served as his mother’s attorney in all her dealings with the insurance company.
When the Times ran that story (on page 14 rather than on the front page), the White House chose not to deny the truth of Scott’s reporting. But that didn’t stop the Obama campaign from refloating the same falsehoods about Ms. Dunham having perished for lack of insurance coverage in an autobiographical campaign film narrated by Tom Hanks. Not only has the president never apologized for lying to the American people about his mother’s plight, he rightly assumed that even though the truth was uncovered by the New York Times, neither that paper nor the rest of the mainstream media would follow up on it as they undoubtedly would had a Republican ever tried to sell the voters such a transparent whopper.
It may be as Shear writes, that as a result of Maraniss’s work, Obama may face more questions about his “personal narrative” than he did four years ago. But the proof of his willingness to tell a lie — even one about his late mother — about his past in order to score political points has already been well established. Most Americans don’t care about the president’s old girlfriends or place much importance about the proper sequence of events in his life. Nor should they. But the myth he wove about Ann Dunham’s death is the sort of damning falsehood for which he still deserves to be held accountable. That he won’t be is a much bigger story than anything uncovered by Maraniss.
("The Cooling of America" and "The Big Freeze" covers are from the 1970's. Scientists have been trying to convince us the world is coming to an end since I was a childhood. Why do you think that is?)
The AGW movement, and the Green Movement out of which it came, are Trojan Horses which are being used to introduce Socialist ideas into Western political systems.
Just for the record, the reason I don't believe Global Warming is going to kill us is because, at 46 years of age, I have been Chicken Littled by scientists far too many times.
During the course of my lifetime, I have been told
1) we were overpopulating the earth (it turns out all of our problems with food have to do with distribution, not shortages)
2) we would eat each other like rats in cages (I have yet to see evidence of mass cannibalism caused by overcrowding)
3) we were polluting ourselves to death (the USA is cleaner than when I was a kid, but the third world is more polluted, proving the solution to pollution is not less productivity but more Capitalism)
4) we were destroying all the forests and would run out of oxygen (the US is more forested now than in the 1800's)
5) we were going to choke the earth with plastics (I have yet to see the Earth huffing and puffing for its last breath)
6) we were going to run out of oil (I had several professors in college in the early 80's who promised me we would run out of oil by the early 1990's - we actually have MORE KNOWN RESERVES NOW THAN AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY - AND IT IS ALL BUT A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT OIL IS NOT A FOSSIL FUEL, BUT IS INSTEAD A NATURAL OCCURRING SUBSTANCE)
And now, these malevolent, insane scientists are telling us we are destroying the Earth with CO2, which they say causes Global Warming.
Why would anyone believe them, after all they've been wrong about?
AND, THE MOST AMAZING THING IS I HAVE NEVER HEARD AN APOLOGY FROM ANY SCIENTIST FOR ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT.
Why do you think that is?
And note this, have you ever heard any apologies from the Left for having been wrong about Stalin, the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan's strategy for destroying the Soviet Union, the idea that Reagan would start a nuclear war, etc.?
No, there are no apologies from the Scientists who have been wrong.
And, there are no apologies from the Leftists who were wrong about Communism and its death toll, nor about how to destroy the USSR.
And, why do you think these two groups refuse to apologize when they have terrorized us with their never-ending bullshit?
Because, the Leftists and the Scientists share the same goal, and that is they want to do away with consumption, capitalism, and ultimately, human beings in large numbers.
They hate life. And, they want to drag all of us down with them.
How it is that scientists make all these mistakes, terrorize us with predictions about the end of the world, and then refuse to apologize when they are proven wrong.
Additionally, we need to consider why it is that the answers scientists come up with to solve all these problems have always involved totalitarian government intervention.
For instance, Obama's Czar John Holdren prescribed forced abortions and mass sterilization to deal with the overpopulation "problem" (which has turned out to be a complete myth).
John Holdren has never taken his words back, nor has he apologized. And, consider this, when people are constantly taught the world is coming to an end, how are they to plan for the future? How are they supposed to have hope?
And, if people believe our population is too high, why should they have children? Is not life less joyful, less full of love and hope, if we have less children?
And, if people believe consumerism inevitably leads to more Global Warming then, once again, why should people have children? After all, every child added to the world is yet another consumer, who will inevitably make the Earth even warmer.
If we are to take these scientists seriously, we must consider
1) what the psychological effect is on human beings who are told the world is ending (damages our ability to live with hope and joy)
and
2) what our society would look like if we actually decided to use the prescriptions of these insane totalitarian scientists ...
Imagine if we took their prescriptions for public policy. Most of you under the age of 35 probably would NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN.
If we do not consider these questions, then we are being complacent, and intellectually dishonest. Not just about science, but about the reality of the prescriptions, and about the reality of the mass psychological damage to human beings.
Do not be complacent about these questions, becaue they are fundamental questions which go right to the heart of the love, joy, and hope. They are questions which force us to consider whether we can even afford to enjoy life.
And that is at least as important as Global Warming.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” – Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” – Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” – Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” – Professor Maurice King
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” – Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” – Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” – Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
One final quote left out of the video:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
- The Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution (1991) by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider – Page 75
Our future DEPENDS on their defeat. We MUST DEFEAT them! This is no joking matter. This is not something any liberty minded individual should take lightly. Period!
Most of the MSM is as we know are hand maidens of the far left environmentalists agenda.
"(...) Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States today filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an Application for an Injunction to Stay the Electoral Votes on December 15, 2008 and prohibit V.P. Richard B. Cheney, the House of Representatives and the Senate counting any votes for Obama until Obama Proves he is “Qualified” to be President. (...)
Mr. Berg remarked today, “I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionallyqualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”
Berg continued, “Obama knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified.” (...)"
Attached is the complete U. S. Supreme Court filing with exhibits and affadavits: U.S. Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari – PDF (202 KB)
Exhibit Charter Schools Rainbow Edition Newsletter – PDF (658 KB)
Exhibit The Star Bulletin – Obama born in different hostpital – PDF (43 KB)
Exhibit Plaintiff Request for Admissions to Obama – PDF (80 KB)
Application to Justice David H. Souter for a stay of the Presidential Elections and/or a Temp. Injunction staying the Presidential Election pending resolution of the Writ of Certiorari – PDF (206 KB)
Philip J. Berg Will Be Arriving U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, DC at 3:15 p.m. today to file for an Injunction to Stay Presidential Election Pending Writ of Certiorari regarding Obama who is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States
(Press Release - 10/30/08 - Contact information and pdf of press release at bottom)
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/30/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he will be at the United States Supreme Court today, October 30, 2008 to file:
1.Application to Justice Souter for an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008; and 2.Writ of Certiorari. Berg stated, “I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the Injunction pending a review of this case to avoid a Constitutional Crisis by insisting that Obama produce certified documentation that he is or is not a “natural born” citizen and if he cannot produce documentation that Obama be removed from the ballot for President.
Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?
What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 86.1 + million hits.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Though Obama has posted an image of a Hawaii birth certificate online, Berg demands that the court verify the original document, which the Obama campaign has not provided.
Now Berg cites Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.
Since Obama has only filed motions to dismiss and has not actually answered the charges in the lawsuit, Berg claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen.
Now Berg is asking the court for a formal declaration of Obama's admission and asking the Democratic National Committee for another presidential candidate.
In a statement released today, Berg argues that he filed Requests for Admissions on Sept. 15, meaning Obama had until Oct. 15 to answer or face the consequences of Rule 36.
"Obama and the DNC 'admitted,' by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit," Berg's statement reads. "Obama is 'not qualified' to be president and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for president and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."
Plaintiff Phil J. Berg filed two motions today seeking an expedited resolution in Berg v. Obama. (PDF's of the motions are attached below.)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
This motion argues that the facts have been established that Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be elected or serve as President of the United States, and that the Court should issue a summary judgment as follows:
That Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” or “naturalized” United States citizen. That he is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States. That the Democratic National Committee be enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot. That the Democratic National Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Office of the Presidency. That Barack Hussein Obama’s, et al name be removed from any and all ballots for the Office of the President of the United States. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING AN EXPEDITED RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This motion requests that the court:
Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Order that Defendants Response to Plaintiff=s Motion is to be filed and served upon Plaintiff by a specified date. Order that a Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution be set for a specific date
