The 46 Traitors Who Want To Give Away Our Gun Rights To The United Nations

Stolen from Patriot's Corner

I have highlighted the traitor from my state in RED.

Please share this with as many as you can and I say these traitors are no better than the master they serve in the regime, Obama.PatriotUSA

Traitors (46 of them) Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms, and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

  Baldwin (D-WI)
  Baucus (D-MT)
  Bennet (D-CO)
  Blumenthal (D-CT)
  Boxer (D-CA)
  Brown (D-OH)
  Cantwell (D-WA)
  Cardin (D-MD)
  Carper (D-DE)
  Casey (D-PA)
  Coons (D-DE)
  Cowan (D-MA)
  Durbin (D-IL)
  Feinstein (D-CA)
  Franken (D-MN)
  Gillibrand (D-NY)
  Harkin (D-IA)
  Hirono (D-HI)
  Johnson (D-SD)
  Kaine (D-VA)
  King (I-ME)
  Klobuchar (D-MN)
  Landrieu (D-LA)
  Leahy (D-VT)
  Levin (D-MI)
  McCaskill (D-MO)
  Menendez (D-NJ)
  Merkley (D-OR)
  Mikulski (D-MD)
  Murphy (D-CT)
  Murray (D-WA)
  Nelson (D-FL)
  Reed (D-RI)
  Reid (D-NV)
  Rockefeller (D-WV)
  Sanders (I-VT)
  Schatz (D-HI)
  Schumer (D-NY)
  Shaheen (D-NH)
  Stabenow (D-MI)
  Udall (D-CO)
  Udall (D-NM)
  Warner (D-VA)
  Warren (D-MA)
  Whitehouse (D-RI)
  Wyden (D-OR)

This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the next election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

The Constitution? What's That?

Stolen From Faultline USA

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet 

***************************************************************************

The dictionary tells us that a constitution is a law, or compilation of laws, determining the fundamental political principles of a government. 

The people of the United States have a constitution.

Now, I know this will come as a shock to many, but we actually DO have a constitution, which was written at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 and subsequently ratified by the original thirteen states. 

As we observe the huge blob that our government has become since, one has to wonder if the constitution is relevant anymore. 

I mentioned a while back that I actually saw a debate on one of the cable news channels about this very thing recently.  Frankly, I was horrified that such a discussion even took place.  But it did.  And I watched it, slack-jawed, all the way through. 

There are those among us who say the constitution is dead.  In fact, at The November Coalition website you'll even find an obituary for the constitution:

National Obituaries:
Death and Funeral Notices

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Dead at 221 YRS

The world and especially the people of America have lost a most courageous and loyal friend, one who has been there for the downtrodden, the hopeless and those who have always struggled for fairness. Through prodigious pain and agonizing suffering which quietly and without notice began to cripple her around 1974, she prevailed relentlessly. But a continuous onslaught of plagues in the '80s and '90s has proved to be just too much for her to bear.

The Constitution of the United States­­ Dead at 221 years of age. The cause of her untimely demise were constant and relentless attacks on her far and wide. In the beginning and through most of her history, friends with courage, pride and dignity protected her. Tragically, in her latter years, insolence, haughtiness and vainglory tore and ripped at her heart and even her soul. In the final period before her death, devious men went their course towards the Constitution's complete destruction with its own sworn protectors, the U.S. Criminal Justice System. Their cold acts were the most intrinsic of all her traitors.

The U.S. Constitution has now been laid to rest. This fact will never erase the distressing sadness that she was killed in cold blood by many of her own.

    Submitted by Stephen C. Labacz & Steve Daniel, Prisoners of War in America

SOURCE: http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/11/1105.html

America has been replacing the freedom of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with Marxism/socialism for many decades now.  The move toward socialism in America is nothing new. 

President Herbert Hoover (President of the United States 1929-1932)  in an address at West Branch, Iowa on August 10, 1954 voiced his deep concern over socialism and the threat it presented for America and the world.  Here is a portion of President Hoover's remarks:  

"I have witnessed the legacy of war in doubting minds, brutality, crime and debased morals. Moreover, I have witnessed on the ground in 20 nations the workings of the philosophy of that anti-Christ, Karl Marx.

After these long years and from all these experiences, there rises constantly in my mind the forces which make for progress and those which may corrode away the safeguards of freedom in America. I want to say something about these forces but I shall endeavor to do so, not in the tones of Jeremiah but in the spirit of Saint Paul....

Our Founding Fathers did not invent the priceless boon of individual freedom and respect for the dignity of men. That great gift to mankind sprang from the Creator and not from governments.

The Founding Fathers, with superb genius, welded together the safeguards of these freedoms....Today the Socialist virus and poison gas generated by Karl Marx and Friedreich Engels have spread into every nation on the earth.

Their dogma is absolute materialism which defies truth and religious faith. Their poisons are of many sorts. The preservation of the safeguards of liberty makes it imperative that we give heed to their every variety....

A nation is strong or weak, it thrives or perishes upon what it believes to be true. If our youth is rightly instructed in the faith of our fathers; in the traditions of our country; in the dignity of each individual man, then our power will be stronger than any weapon of destruction that man can devise.

And now as to this whole gamut of Socialist infections, I say to you...God has blessed us with another wonderful word--heritage. The great documents of that heritage are not from Karl Marx. They are from the Bible, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Within them alone can the safeguards of freedom survive....

These new frontiers give us other blessings. Not only do they expand our living but also they open new opportunities and new areas of adventure and enterprise. They open new vistas of beauty. They unfold the wonders of the atom and the heavens. Daily they prove the reality of an all-wise Supreme Giver of Law."

After reading these few remarks is it any wonder that President Hoover is one of the most vilified American Presidents of all time?

Our republic is dying.  There can be no doubt of that.  She's dying because we (The People) have turned our backs on her.  We don't care anymore.  We have learned to rely on government for our existence -- from the cradle to the grave -- and we no longer feel that urge for freedom and liberty.

We don't really care what the government does just so long as they keep us safe and secure and keep the checks coming once a month.

A republic cannot survive such laziness --  not even America.

,,,

Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause

Better learn to say “Salaam Aleikum!”

The U.S. government condemns burning the Qur'an. Yet the U.S. government burns Bibles. This is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

H/T Gates of Vienna

4 Votes...4 Votes Killed Liberty In America

Cross posted from Holger Awakens

Lady Liberty is crying tonight, shedding tears over fear for all of the Americans she stands watching over. The gory details follow from the story excerpted below from Breitbart.

From Breitbart:

Obama achieves health law success that eluded past


WASHINGTON (AP) - Rarely does the government, that big, clumsy, poorly regarded oaf, pull off anything short of war that touches all lives with one act, one stroke of a president's pen. Such a moment has come.
After a year of riotous argument, decades of failure and a century of spoiled hopes, the United States is reaching for a system of medical care that extends coverage nearly to all citizens. The change that's coming will reshape a sixth of the economy and shatter the status quo.

To the ardent liberal, President Barack Obama's health care plan, passed by the House on Sunday night, is a shadow of what should have been, sapped by dispiriting downsizing and trade-offs.

To the loud foe on the right, it is a dreadful expansion of the nanny state.

To history, it is likely to be judged alongside the boldest acts of presidents and Congress in the pantheon of domestic affairs. Think of the guaranteed federal pensions of Social Security, socialized medicine for the old and poor, the civil rights remedies to inequality.

Change is coming, but in steps, not overnight. The major expansion of coverage to 32 million people—powered by subsidies, employer obligations, a mandate for most Americans to carry insurance, new places to buy it and rules barring insurance companies from turning sick people away—is four years out.

In contrast, on June 30, 1966, after a titanic struggle capped by the bill signing a year earlier, President Lyndon Johnson launched government health insurance for the elderly with three simple words, as if flicking a switch: "Medicare begins tomorrow."

Obama practically needs a spreadsheet to tell people what's going on and when with the law he will sign as soon as Monday.

Yet he and LBJ share a distinction: They are the only two presidents to succeed with a transcendent health care law.

You can be sure Obama, a student of history, is aware of how LBJ captured the moment when Medicare became law with his pen. That happened in Independence, Mo., in the presence of the very first American to sign up for the program: Harry Truman. The ex-president had ended a world war but could not achieve national health insurance in his time.

"Care for the sick, serenity for the fearful," Johnson promised that day. "In this town, and a thousand other towns like it, there are men and women in pain who will now find ease."

Said Truman: "I am glad to have lived this long."

Ted Kennedy lived long enough to see a goal of his lifetime take shape but not long enough for it to happen. His death last summer was almost the death of the whole plan because a Republican won his Senate seat, changed the voting balance and left despondent Democrats in search of a second wind, which they found.

Why is this so hard? In part, because self-reliance and suspicion of a strong central government intruding into people's lives are rooted in the founding of the republic, and still strong.

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a national mental health bill on the basis that it would be unconstitutional to treat health as anything but a private matter that is none of the government's business.

Seventy-five years later, the American Medical Association denounced proposals for organized medical services as an "incitement to revolution" at the hands of "Medical Soviets."

And that wasn't even about government-run health care. The AMA's fierce opposition to collectivism included objections to private health insurance, the norm today, and the pooling of doctors into what became health maintenance organizations decades later.

No wonder would-be health reformers were thwarted one generation after another even as they made deep imprints on the nation in other ways.

Teddy Roosevelt couldn't do it—and he's carved into Mount Rushmore.

Franklin D. Roosevelt rewrote the social compact with his job and retirement security and regulatory expansion, all in the jagged teeth of the Depression, then took the nation to war. He made national health insurance a second-tier priority and it eluded him.

Even so, social responsibility for medicine grew.

In 1930, citizens paid nearly 80 percent of the nation's medical costs from their own pocket. Government at all levels covered a mere 14 percent, with industry and philanthropy picking up the few remaining crumbs. Insurance was barely in the picture.

Federal and state programs now cover half the cost of health care purchased in the country and were expected to go over 50 percent in the next year or two even absent Obama's plan. By that measure, the government takeover of health care that opponents warn about is happening regardless of congressional action.

Why the creep of government in health care? In part, because individualism isn't the entire American story. The idea of watching out for each other is also in the nation's fabric.

Besides, as much as Americans hate overbearing government and higher taxes, give them a federal benefit and then just try to take it away. Today's hot potato becomes tomorrow's cherished check.

That's one reason government programs grow—and why Democrats dared to push for a less than popular package mere months from congressional elections, when people were telling their leaders to create jobs instead.

Johnson, full of beans after his Medicare victory, realized all of this.

"The doubters predicted a scandal; we gave them a success story," he crowed a month after the law took effect, as hundreds of thousands of patients entered hospitals for treatment covered by the government and some 6 million children and needy adults began getting benefits.

"Where are the doubters tonight?" he asked. "Where are the prophets of crisis and catastrophe? Well, some of them are signing their applications; some of them are mailing in their Medicare cards because they now want to share in the success of this program."

Obama can only hope for such a first-blush reception. He took on the cause of universal coverage after a campaign in which he did not promise it, intending only to secure insurance for all children and shrink the pool of uninsured adults. His health care ambition grew in office, quickly.

More than a quarter century before, Ted Kennedy came close to the prize with none other than the Republican president, Richard Nixon, who embraced ideas that mainstream Republicans today cannot tolerate. Nixon was ready to force businesses to provide health insurance to their workers or pay heavy penalties.

Sound familiar? It will.

At its core, Nixon's proposal is a pillar of Obama's plan today. Nixon's willingness to subsidize coverage for the working poor is also seen in the plan, though writ larger.

Back then, Kennedy's union and liberal allies gambled that by spurning Nixon, they'd get something better later. They didn't. In similar fashion years after that, President Bill Clinton aimed high and crashed hard.

Clinton no doubt drew on his own failure when, in December, he advised Democrats to pass what they could manage and not make it an all-or-nothing fight. "America," he said, "can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Obama absorbed these lessons.

For him, a system with government as the sole or principal payer of everyone's medical bills was a nonstarter, nice for the ideologues and other countries but not the American way. He would have liked the option of a government-run plan competing in the marketplace, but didn't need it.

For months he stood so far back from the legislative nitty-gritty that it was hard to tell what he stood for.

In the end, he stood for more than the incremental steps that succeeded in the past, and for less than the towering ideas that failed.

Once Again Obama Reaches Out To The Muslim World

Once again Barack Hussein Obama is reaching out to the Muslim World. This time it is a message to celebrate Ramadan. And once again he is showing his preference towards Islam.

President Obama gave no special speech or address on Easter, or Passover. In fact, all he did was add a paragraph to his weekly address.

This will be his fourth speech to the Muslim World. His first being a warm New Year (Nowruz) greeting to Iran, then the speech in Turkey, his Cairo speech, and now this one. How many more are to follow?

The Text of Obama's Ramadan Address

On behalf of the American people - including Muslim communities in all fifty states - I want to extend best wishes to Muslims in America and around the world. Ramadan Kareem.

Ramadan is the month in which Muslims believe the Koran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, beginning with a simple word - iqra. It is therefore a time when Muslims reflect upon the wisdom and guidance that comes with faith, and the responsibility that human beings have to one another, and to God.

Like many people of different faiths who have known Ramadan through our communities and families, I know this to be a festive time - a time when families gather, friends host iftars, and meals are shared. But I also know that Ramadan is a time of intense devotion and reflection - a time when Muslims fast during the day and perform tarawih prayers at night, reciting and listening to the entire Koran over the course of the month.

These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.

For instance, fasting is a concept shared by many faiths - including my own Christian faith - as a way to bring people closer to God, and to those among us who cannot take their next meal for granted. And the support that Muslims provide to others recalls our responsibility to advance opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere.

For all of us must remember that the world we want to build - and the changes that we want to make - must begin in our own hearts, and our own communities.

This summer, people across America have served in their communities - educating children, caring for the sick, and extending a hand to those who have fallen on hard times. Faith-based organizations, including many Islamic organizations, have been at the forefront in participating in this summer of service. And in these challenging times, this is a spirit of responsibility that we must sustain in the months and years to come.

Beyond America's borders, we are also committed to keeping our responsibility to build a world that is more peaceful and secure. That is why we are responsibly ending the war in Iraq. That is why we are isolating violent extremists while empowering the people in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we are unyielding in our support for a two-state solution that recognizes the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security. And that is why America will always stand for the universal rights of all people to speak their mind, practice their religion, contribute fully to society and have confidence in the rule of law.

All of these efforts are a part of America's commitment to engage Muslims and Muslim-majority nations on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect. And at this time of renewal, I want to reiterate my commitment to a new beginning between America and Muslims around the world.

As I said in Cairo, this new beginning must be borne out in a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground. I believe an important part of this is listening, and in the last two months, American embassies around the world have reached out not just to governments, but directly to people in Muslim-majority countries. From around the world, we have received an outpouring of feedback about how America can be a partner on behalf of peoples' aspirations.

We have listened. We have heard you. And like you, we are focused on pursuing concrete actions that will make a difference over time - both in terms of the political and security issues that I have discussed, and in the areas that you have told us will make the most difference in peoples' lives.

These consultations are helping us implement the partnerships that I called for in Cairo - to expand education exchange programs; to foster entrepreneurship and create jobs; and to increase collaboration on science and technology, while supporting literacy and vocational learning. We are also moving forward in partnering with the OIC and OIC member states to eradicate polio, while working closely with the international community to confront common health challenges like H1N1 - which I know is of particular to concern to many Muslims preparing for the upcoming hajj.

All of these efforts are aimed at advancing our common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. It will take time and patient effort. We cannot change things over night, but we can honestly resolve to do what must be done, while setting off in a new direction - toward the destination that we seek for ourselves, and for our children. That is the journey that we must travel together.

I look forward to continuing this critically important dialogue and turning it into action. And today, I want to join with the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world - and your families and friends - in welcoming the beginning of Ramadan, and wishing you a blessed month. May God's peace be upon you.

Once again we are seeing the big lie being told. Islam is not the religion that promotes justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. In fact it is just the opposite. The truth is that Islam promotes justice for only Muslim. Tolerance if you pay the jizya.

From the Koran:

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

From the Hadith:

Muslim (19:4294) - There are many places in the hadith where Muhammad tells his followers to demand the jizya of non-believers. Here he lays down the rule that it is to be extorted by force: "If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

Bukhari (53:386) - The command for Muslims to spread Islamic rule by force, subjugating others until they either convert to Islam or pay money, is eternal: Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." This is being recounted during the reign of Umar, Muhammad's companion and the second caliph who sent conquering armies into non-Muslim Persian and Christian lands (after Muhammad's death).

Ishaq 956 & 962 - "He who withholds the Jizya is an enemy of Allah and His apostle." The words of Muhammad.

Not very tolerant is it. Then there is the dignity of all humans. He must mean the male ones only, for in Islam women have no dignity, no rights.

From the Koran:

Qur'an (4:11) - (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (see also verse 4:176).

Qur'an (2:282) - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." Muslim apologists have sometimes creatively tried to explain why a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's under Islamic law (based on this verse) while still attempting to maintain the semblance of equality. Unfortunately for them, studies consistently show that women are less likely to tell lies than men, meaning that they would make more reliable witnesses in any court - were it not for Islam's obvious sexism.

Qur'an (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"

Qur'an (5:6) - "And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it" Men are to rub dirt on their hands if there is no water to purify them following casual contact with a woman (such as shaking hands).

Qur'an (24:31) - Women are to lower their gaze around men, so they do not look them in the eye.

Qur'an (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." A man has dominion over his wives' bodies as he does his land. This verse is overtly sexual. There is some dispute as to whether it is referring to the practice of anal intercourse, which it has been used historically to justify. If this is what Muhammad meant, however, then it would appear to contradict what he said in Muslim (8:3365).

Qur'an (4:3) - (Wife-to-husband ratio) "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four"

Qur'an (53:27) - "Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names." Angels are sublime beings, and would therefore be male.

Qur'an (4:24) and Qur'an (33:52) - A man is permitted to take women as sex slaves outside of marriage.

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (6:301) - "[Muhammad] said, 'Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?' They replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her intelligence.'"

Bukhari (6:301) - continued - "[Muhammad said] 'Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?' The women replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her religion.'" Allah has made women deficient in the practice of their religion as well, by giving them menstrual cycles.

Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants. This is important because the only women in heaven ever mentioned by Muhammad are the virgins who serve the sexual desires of men. (A weak Hadith, Kanz al-`ummal, 22:10, even suggests that 99% of women go to Hell).

Bukhari (62:81) - "The Prophet said: "'The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the (women's) private parts (i.e. the stipulations of the marriage contract).'" In other words, the most important thing that a woman brings to a marriage is between her legs.

Bukhari (62:58) - A woman presents herself in marriage to Muhammad, but he does not find her attractive, so he "donates" her on the spot to another man.

Muslim (4:1039) - "A'isha said [to Muhammad]: 'You have made us equal to the dogs and the asses'"

Abu Dawud (2:704) - "...the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw."

Ishaq 593 - "As for Ali, he said, 'Women are plentiful, and you can easily change one for another.'" Ali was raised as a son by Muhammad. He was also the 4th caliph. This comment was made in Muhammad's presence without a word of rebuke from him.

Ishaq 593 - "From the captives of Hunayn, Allah's Messenger gave [his son-in-law] Ali a slave girl called Baytab and he gave [future Caliph] Uthman a slave girl called Zaynab and [future Caliph] Umar another." - Even in this world, Muhammad treated women like party favors, handing out slave girls to his cronies for sex.

Ishaq 969 - "Men were to lay injunctions on women lightly, for they were prisoners of men and had no control over their persons." - This same text also justifies beating women for flirting.

Will someone please explain to me how any of those examples equate to the values founded in the US Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Then explain to me how Shar'ia Law is in any way compatible with American Jurisprudence. I don't see it, yet Harold Koh, a legal adviser for the State Department, and appointed by Obama would impose Shar'ia Law in the United States. So much for the Separation of Church and State, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

How many more speeches will Obama send to the Muslims before he just gives the speech declaring the US a Muslim Nation, forcing everyone to either convert to Islam or become Dhimmis, and forcing a strict interpetation of Shar'ia on us all. After all he has shown his true colors:

Supreme Court Sends Citizenship Appeal to an Anthrax Lab

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Who is this man?

U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices

As expected, President-elect Barack Obama and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) let yesterday's Supreme Court deadline to respond to Philip Berg's Writ of Certiorari slip by unanswered, but it appears even at the Supreme Court, a deadline is not really a deadline as the Court allows two additional days for "mail service."

Associate Justice David Souter denied an emergency appeal for the Court to halt the Electoral College's tabulation of votes to officially declare Barack Obama the President, until proof of his eligibility is affirmed. While Souter denied the appeal, he did set the above mentioned requirement for a response from Obama and the DNC.

Attorney Philip Berg, this morning, filed an emergency injunction with the Court to bar Obama from taking the oath of office of the Presidency. Jeff at America's Right interprets Berg's motion as follows:

From what I could gather, the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two main parts -- in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court

(1) to prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting votes for Obama on December 15, and

(2) to stay the official counting of any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and United States Senate on January 6, 2009, pending any decision on his appeal.

Berg is quoted as saying that he is one-thousand percent certain that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Obama and the DNC are not "obligated" to file an answer, and Berg says that he "believes that the lack of response could be rooted less in procedure and more in audacity..." "The feeling may be that, if they respond, they could hold themselves out for perjury later on when we're successful."

As November 4th neared, a few of us were desperately attempting to get this information to the public. Surely, we thought (bloggers) this was an important and valid issue. After all, the Supreme Court ordered Obama to provide proof of his U.S. birth. How many times has that happened? But the MSM wouldn't touch it. I thought the media, including cable television, viewed this as too ludicrous to even consider, but as time passed, credible reasons to believe that Obama could not provide proof of his U.S. birth, began piling up. Someone, for some reason, was able to keep this out of the MSM.

Here are other actions at work at the Supreme Court:

Donofrio v. Wells will be heard by the full Court with Justice Clarence Thomas chairing the Conference on December 5th. The purpose of the Conference is to consider granting Certiorari, which allows further review of the original lawsuit.

If 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo’s [Donofrio] case, there will be an oral argument and further briefing. If 5 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative, they could grant a stay of the Electoral College vote.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz "has been officially tendered to the Supreme Court..." All things get weirder when it concerns Barack Obama. Wrotnowski, allegedly, was told by the Court that his emergency stay renewal was referred to an ANTHRAX CONTAINMENT FACILITY! A reader left this information on a Maggie's Notebook post, and it appears that is exactly what Wrotnowski is saying he was told in a telephone conversation (read more below).

Hunter v. Obama sent to the Supreme Court

For detailed information and commentary read the terrific work by The Right Side of Life which also reports this intriguing information:

There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network):

Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008. [emphasis mine]

We now know that the renewed request to halt the election was not denied and is actively being considered at the Supreme Court.

The We the People Foundation placed a full page in the Chicago Tribune, running on December 1st and 3rd:

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8.

A First Amendment Petition to any official of the Government for Redress of a violation of the Constitution is substantially different from the garden-variety political petitions frequently received by government officials. This Petition demands it be given the highest priority for an expedited review and official Response by Mr. Obama.

As a formal "Notice of a Constitutional Violation," the Petition naturally includes the People's inherent Right to an official Response. As a time-sensitive, election related Petition involving the Office of the President, failure to Respond as requested would constitute an egregious breach of the public trust and confirm the certainty of a Constitutional crisis.

Dr. Orly Taitz reports numerous phone calls to the SC demanding to know why Cort Wrotnowski's Petition for Stay of Elections was delayed by 7 days because it was sent to an anthrax lab:

Mr. Wrotnowski is a law abiding citizen, a business owner, was never in trouble with the law. Why was his petition delayed by a week via sending it to the Anthrax lab. No response was received, no name of the clerk was given. These clerks are sabotaging anti Obama cases to put a foreigner in the White House, this is bordering on aiding and abetting treason.

Dr. Taitz is asking for our help:

Please write to all 9 judges, let them know what is going on, demand to join all 5 cases currently in the Supreme Court, you can send them a copy of our Keyes v Bowen petition for Writ of Mandate as a supporting document. Currently I am working on filing a second case, representing another group of candidates, party officials, Certified Electors and Registered voters and I am assisting other attorneys all around the country, that are preparing similar actions and trying to match voters and electors in different states with attorneys that can represent them.

Here's contact information (if you have previous written, please continue to do so):

The Honorable Associate Justice
Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First St. N. E.
Washington DC 20543

Put docket # on Envelope 08-A407

Ask him UPHOLD our Constitution with Full Disclosure as the only Constitutionally viable answer.

Also, send identical requests to the remaining Justices: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Antonin G. Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Samuel A. Alito, Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer

Read more about Dr. Taitz's attempts to hold Barack Obama accountable.

America, this is no small thing.

A Sane Voice in a Dim-Witted Congress: Freeze the Bailout

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Photo courtesy of dagonvalek


Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is introducing legislation requiring Congress to ratify the spending of the remaining $350 billion bailout fund, abolishing the sole rights given to Treasury Secretary Paulson to spend American taxpayer monies at his will - and hopefully, to completely freeze the bailout.

Inhofe voted against the prior bailout legislation for two reasons:

The first is that I wasn't convinced that asset-purchase program was the right way to do this, and the second is that it would lead to increased lobbying for handouts and bailouts by any industry facing financial trouble.

I stated at the time that my vote was against the Paulson plan - not against taking extraordinary action to provide necessary confidence to financial markets. I stated that "The Paulson plan would have Washington take $700 billion worth of toxic Wall Street assets from financial firms' balance sheets and put them on the balance sheet of the federal government.... I'm not confident in its success."

Inhofe's press release points to the many problems:

On October 14th, in a significant shift, Treasury outlined a plan to directly purchase equity stakes in of major financial institutions.

The Wall Street Journal noted that "critics...say Treasury should have formulated a comprehensive plan earlier in the crisis." This past week, Secretary Paulson announced that he has completed a remarkable about face,

November 13^th Investor's Business Daily front page headline, which read, "In Major Reversal, Treasury Won't Buy Bad Mortgage Debt." This is a complete reversal. Why did Paulson reverse course?

Thursday's Los Angeles Times provides the answer. "Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson's decision to abandon plans to buy troubled bank assets shows that he has come to two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of the government's $700-billion bailout: The first is that it wouldn't work.

About the constitutionality of the bailout:

Congress abdicated its Constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary. However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.

Inhofe's plan:

During the lame duck session, I will be taking the following actions.

First and foremost, if Secretary Paulson submits his plan to Congress in order to access the remaining $350 billion while we are in session, a doubtful prospect, I plan to immediately introduce the disapproval resolution pursuant to Section 115 of the EESA and push for its enactment.

I will also introduce and actively pursue enactment of legislation to do two things: First, it will amend Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury's plan for the remaining $350 billion, instead of the current statutory process which gives Secretary Paulson far too much latitude.

Second, it will require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion. It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch.

Inhofe's assignment: "Kick Republican Ass - Find their Conservative Values...Stand up and find a spine" Click here, then click the double bars to listen to Senator Inhofe's comprehensive interview with Glen Beck.

Beck: Do you believe our Constitution is hanging by a thread?
Beck: When did we stop believing in bankruptcy?

Beck: How could Obama say we don't have to worry about the deficit over the next couple of years?

Beck: How long before we don't recognize our country anymore? This is a tsunami...

This is an opportunity for us to tell Congress to support Inhofe's legislation. To find your Senator's name and contact information, enter your zip code below and hit "go.":