Wednesday, December 23, 2020
Saturday, June 03, 2017
Monday, October 28, 2013
ObamaCare: From $54 A Month To $591 A Month
Story from the Weekly Standard HERE.
As I mentioned in this post last week, many Kaiser Permanente policy holders are being impacted by ObamaCare — sometimes by reducing hospitals available instead of or in addition to premium hikes.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Sherrod, Obama, And The Pig-Farmers Fraud
Read THIS!Money quote:
...Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of “Pigford v. Glickman” in 1999 only applied to a total of about 16,000 black farmers.Read the rest over at GeeeeeZ!
But.... in 2008, a junior US Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Hussein Obama.
Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim....
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Hilarious Story of the Day: FACT: HYDROGEN CARS WORSE FOR CO2
From the Astute Bloggers:
Copenhagen Commune just purchased a set of Hydrogen powered cars to increase their political correctness quotient during the COP a good feeling 15 conference...the problem is they emit 150% MORE CO2 than a comprable hydrocarbon powered vehicle does. (338 vs. 134 g/km)
Monday, December 07, 2009
Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'
The magical faraway tree: a larch in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, sampled by Dr Keith Briffa, has been called 'the most influential tree in the world'Coming to light in recent days has been one of the most extraordinary scientific detective stories of our time, bizarrely centred on a single tree in Siberia dubbed "the most influential tree in the world". On this astonishing tale, it is no exaggeration to say, could hang in considerable part the future shape of our civilisation. Right at the heart of the sound and fury of "Climategate" – the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest. If all those thousands of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted the world to see.
To appreciate its significance, as I observed last week, it is first necessary to understand that the people these incriminating documents relate to are not just any group of scientists. Professor Philip Jones of the CRU, his colleague Dr Keith Briffa, the US computer modeller Dr Michael Mann, of "hockey stick" fame, and several more make up a tightly-knit group who have been right at the centre of the last two reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On their account, as we shall see at this week's Copenhagen conference, the world faces by far the largest bill proposed by any group of politicians in history, amounting to many trillions of dollars.
It is therefore vitally important that we should trust the methods by which these men have made their case. The supreme prize that they have been working for so long has been to establish that the world is warmer today than ever before in recorded history. To do this it has been necessary to eliminate a wealth of evidence that the world 1,000 years ago was, for entirely natural reasons, warmer than today (the so-called Medieval Warm Period).
The most celebrated attempt to demonstrate this was the "hockey stick" graph produced by Dr Mann in 1999, which instantly became the chief icon of the IPCC and the global warming lobby all over the world. But in 2003 a Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced "hockey stick" graphs whatever random data were fed into it. A wholly unrepresentative sample of tree rings from bristlecone pines in the western USA had been made to stand as "proxies" to show that there was no Medieval Warm Period, and that late 20th-century temperatures had soared to unprecedented levels.
Although McIntyre's exposure of the "hockey stick" was upheld in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress, the small group of scientists at the top of the IPCC brushed this aside by pointing at a hugely influential series of graphs originating from the CRU, from Jones and Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewriting of climate history in the "hockey stick", by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia. Briffa was put in charge of the key chapter of the IPCC's fourth report, in 2007, which dismissed all McIntyre's criticisms.
At the forefront of those who found suspicious the graphs based on tree rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia was McIntyre himself, not least because for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct them.
This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. But last summer the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, and two months ago Briffa accordingly published on his website some of the data McIntyre had been after.
This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that was wanted.
Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most influential tree in the world".
But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps" to "Keith's" graph, in order to "hide the decline". Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the "hockey stick" (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted – without explanation – with a line based on the quite different data of measured global temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up.
A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit, known only as "Lucy Skywalker". She has cross-checked with the actual temperature records for that part of Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at all. (For further details see the science blog Watts Up With That.)
In other words, what has become arguably the most influential set of evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been as definitively kicked into touch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures which, if adopted, would require us all in the West to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything up to 80 per cent, utterly transforming the world economy.
Little of this extraordinary story been reported by the BBC or most of our mass-media, so possessed by groupthink that they are unable to see the mountain of evidence now staring them in the face. Not for nothing was Copenhagen the city in which Hans Andersen wrote his story about the Emperor whose people were brainwashed into believing that he was wearing a beautiful suit of clothes. But today there are a great many more than just one little boy ready to point out that this particular Emperor is wearing nothing at all.
I will only add two footnotes to this real-life new version of the old story. One is that, as we can see from the CRU's website, the largest single source of funding for all its projects has been the European Union, which at Copenhagen will be more insistent than anyone that the world should sign up to what amounts to the most costly economic suicide note in history.
The other is that the ugly, drum-like concrete building at the University of East Anglia which houses the CRU is named after its founder, the late Hubert Lamb, the doyen of historical climate experts. It was Professor Lamb whose most famous contribution to climatology was his documenting and naming of what he called the Medieval Warm Epoch, that glaring contradiction of modern global warming theory which his successors have devoted untold efforts to demolishing.
If only they had looked at the evidence of those Siberian trees in the spirit of true science, they might have told us that all their efforts to show otherwise were in vain, and that their very much more distinguished predecessor was right after all.
MORE FROM THE AMERICAN THINKER.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, Totalitarianism, and The Destruction of Hope and Joy
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.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
From Gateway (click on the title above to get the whole story):
Climategate: it’s all unravelling now
Climate Depot- Daily ExpressJunk Scientists deleted global cooling data that showed the earth was cooling not heating up.
The deleted information is in red. (WUWT)
Watts Up With That posted this report that exposes the junk scientists behind global warming as complete frauds.For the very first time, the Climategate Letters “archived” the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of “Hide the Decline” fame – see here. Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true.
The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001. Nor was the decline shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I’ll return to.)
Meanwhile, it seems the American people are no longer buying into the Global Warming Myth:
Poll: 59% think AGW scientists may have falsified data
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
AWESOME: BREAKING NEWS: CLIMATEGATE SCIENTISTS TO STEP DOWN - TEMPORARILY
AS IN THE CHARLES FREEMAN AFFAIR, BECAUSE THE MSM REFUSED TO COVER THE CONTROVERSY TRYING TO BURY IT AND WISHING IT WOULD GO AWAY)MANY AMERICANS WILL BE WONDERING WHY THIS GUY STEPPED DOWN.
VIA DRUDGE: (AP) - Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.
The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.
THEY SHOULD ALL REALIZE THE MSM IS TOTALLY BIASED AND UNTRUSTWORTHY.
White House Insists Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Still Settled ... So There
From Professor of Meteorology, at Massachusettes Institute of Technology, Richard Lindzen:
THE CLIMATE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED
Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.
Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.
The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.
Getty ImagesThe defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.
That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let's refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called "climate forcing."
There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.
The IPCC's Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim.
The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.
Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.
Of course, none of the articles stressed this. Rather they emphasized that according to models modified to account for the natural internal variability, warming would resume—in 2009, 2013 and 2030, respectively.
But even if the IPCC's iconic statement were correct, it still would not be cause for alarm. After all we are still talking about tenths of a degree for over 75% of the climate forcing associated with a doubling of CO2. The potential (and only the potential) for alarm enters with the issue of climate sensitivity—which refers to the change that a doubling of CO2 will produce in GATA. It is generally accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant. This is unlikely to be much to worry about.
Yet current climate models predict much higher sensitivities. They do so because in these models, the main greenhouse substances (water vapor and clouds) act to amplify anything that CO2 does. This is referred to as positive feedback. But as the IPCC notes, clouds continue to be a source of major uncertainty in current models. Since clouds and water vapor are intimately related, the IPCC claim that they are more confident about water vapor is quite implausible.
There is some evidence of a positive feedback effect for water vapor in cloud-free regions, but a major part of any water-vapor feedback would have to acknowledge that cloud-free areas are always changing, and this remains an unknown. At this point, few scientists would argue that the science is settled. In particular, the question remains as to whether water vapor and clouds have positive or negative feedbacks.
The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate offers some guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's. Carl Sagan in the 1970s referred to this as the "Early Faint Sun Paradox."
For more than 30 years there have been attempts to resolve the paradox with greenhouse gases. Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed was thousands of times greater than present levels and incompatible with geological evidence. Methane also proved unlikely. It turns out that increased thin cirrus cloud coverage in the tropics readily resolves the paradox—but only if the clouds constitute a negative feedback. In present terms this means that they would diminish rather than enhance the impact of CO2.
There are quite a few papers in the literature that also point to the absence of positive feedbacks. The implied low sensitivity is entirely compatible with the small warming that has been observed. So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.
What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.
The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.
Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.
Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Obama the (CIA) Hoax?
Now, new press release of Philip J. Berg:
Press Release 12/08/08: U. S. Supreme Court asked to issue an injunction to stay electorial votes on December 15, 2008 until Obama proves he is "qualified" to be President as this is the largest "HOAX" in 200 years.
The press release states:
"(...) 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.” (...)"
Friday, October 24, 2008
Obama 'admits' Kenyan birth?
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."
Complete article at WorldNetDaily.com
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Philip J. Berg files motion to expedite resolution in Berg vs. Obama
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
Obamacrimes.com
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit - Obama’s “Not” Qualified to be President!!!
So, let me get this straight; Phil Berg filed a suit. Obama didn't respond. The Court takes the lack of response as an admission of guilt. However, there has been no ruling on the admission of guilt by way of non-response, as of yet.
Am I right?
Read on -
Obama Should Immediately
Withdraw his Candidacy
for President
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) - 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 Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. 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. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.
OBAMA - Admitted:
1. I was born in Kenya.
2. I am a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.
5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.
6. My mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
7. The COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
8. I was adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
9. I was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
10. I was not born in Hawaii.
11. I was not born at the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii.
12. I was not born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii.
13. I was not born in a Hospital in Hawaii.
14. I am a citizen of Indonesia.
15. I never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain my U.S. Citizenship status.
16. I am not a “natural born” United States citizen.
17. My date of birth is August 4, 1961.
18. I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with my Pakistan friends.
19. In 1981, I went to Indonesia on my way to Pakistan.
20. Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens.
21. In 1981, Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country.
22. I traveled on my Indonesian Passport to Pakistan.
23. I renewed my Indonesian Passport on my way to Pakistan.
24. My senior campaign staff is aware I am not a “natural born” United States Citizen.
25. I am proud of my Kenya Heritage.
26. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.
27. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.
28. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.
29. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.
30. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.
31. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.
32. The document identified as my Indonesian School record from Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia is genuine.
33. I went to a Judge in Hawaii to have my name changed.
34. I went to a Senator and/or Congressman or other public official in Hawaii to have my name changed.
35. I had a passport issued to me from the Government of Indonesia.
36. The United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
37. I am ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.
38. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Indonesia.
39. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Kenya.
40. I am an Attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law.
41. Kenya was a part of the British Colonies at the time of my birth.
42. Kenya did not become its own Republic until 1963.
43. I am not a “Naturalized” United States Citizen.
44. I obtained $200 Million dollars in campaign funds by fraudulent means.
45. I cannot produce a “vault” (original) long version of a birth certificate showing my birth in Hawaii.
46. My “vault” (original) long version birth certificate shows my birth in Kenya.
47. The only times I was to a Hospital in Hawaii was for check-ups or medical treatments for illnesses.
48. Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.
49. Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.
50. I was born in the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
51. I represented on my State Bar application in Illinois that I never used any other name other than Barack Hussein Obama.
52. I went by the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia.
53. My Indonesian school records are under the name of Barry Soetoro.
54. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when admitted to the State Bar of Illinois to practice Law.
55. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when I was Sworn into my United States Senate Office.
56. I hold dual citizenship with at least one other Country besides the United States of America.
DNC - Admitted:
1. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.
2. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama.
3. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama.
4. The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
5. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.
6. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen.
7. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii.
8.The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status.
9. The DNC admits they have a duty to properly vette the Democratic Nominee for President.
10.The DNC admits Lolo Soetoro, M.A., an Indonesian citizen adopted Barrack Hussein Obama.
11. The DNC admits the Credentials Committee has been aware of this lawsuit since August 22, 2008 as the lawsuit was faxed to our Washington D.C. Office on August 22, 2008.
12. The DNC admits their Credentials Committee failed to verify and/or inquire into the credentials of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as the President of the United States.
13. The DNC admits their Credential Committee’s Report failed to address the issues of Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility to serve as President of the United States.
14.The DNC admits Howard Dean, Chair Person has and had knowledge Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to serve as the President of the United States.
15. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all Democratic citizens of the United States have been personally injured as a result of not having a qualified Democratic Presidential Nominee to cast their votes upon.
16. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President of the United States and to have two (2) qualified candidates of which to choose from.
17. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional right to have a properly vetted Democratic Presidential Nominee of which to cast their vote.
18. The DNC admits an FBI background check is not performed on the Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates.
19. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
20. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign.
21. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States.
22. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis.
23. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
24. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution.
25. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution.
26. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizen’s interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans.
27. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States.
Our website http://www.obamacrimes.com/ now has 50.7 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers, radio and TV stations. 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.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Barack Hussein Obama a Fraud?
More important by a long way rather than my view is the view of "ExMuslimExposeIslam" on YouTube. He knows more than I do and he knows what sort of important questions to put to a "so called ex Muslim". And as I write this I just hear he may have won New Hampshire by a convincing margin over Hilary Clinton. Oh, America, what are you doing?
(cross posted with CommonSense)