There have been some questions that continue to arise about the so-called birth certificate for President-Elect Barack Obama. I came across a couple of interesting articles (not in mainstream news) and thought I would post them here for your review. What are your thoughts about this?

Donofrio v Obama Citizenship
Case Moves To New
Supreme Court Level
By Devvy Kidd
11-19-8

Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been "distributed for conference."

On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case identified as:

Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407

Leo informed me earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas.

This is the link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

If you go to this link, it will give you the process under Title 18:

http://nocriminalcode.blogspot.com/2007/10/petition-distributed-for- conference-on.html

Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process.

This docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."

Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.

Disclaimer

...AND ANOTHER NEWS TIDBIT:

Well, I realize that we are a long way from the year 3,000, but look what humanity has to look forward to! Because of the choice of sexual partners, etc., the human species could divide into a "Sub-species?" Sounds like the potential for radical "elitist" thinking to me. The comment: "The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures," is a dead give-away of this "super-society" mindset.

I am currently registered Independent, and while I have not been pleased with Bush's administration, this recent article and audio clip from an interview held by radio host Michael Savage with Philip J. Berg---the former "Democrat" Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania is JOLTING, if true. Berg is suing Presidential candidate Barack Obama for failing to produce the "proper evdience" confirming his American citizenship. Now, I realize that Savage is probably one of the most radically conservative talk show hosts around, but for a Democrat, who has served as a Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and who has worked on many political campaigns to sue Obama, something has to be UP!

Here is the link, and article:

Phil J. Berg on Michael Savage - Audio
Friday, 24 October 2008 17:38 administrator Main - News
E-mail Print PDF

Phil J. Berg appeared on the Michael Savage radio program on October 23rd, 2008.

Here's a link to the audio file. Mr. Berg was on the program for the first hour and thirty minutes.

POST COMMENTS

Last Updated ( Friday, 24 October 2008 17:49 )

Phil J. Berg files motions to expedite resolution in Berg v.. Obama
Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:29 administrator Main - Main
E-mail Print PDF

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.

Attachments: File Description File size
Download this file (Motion for Expedited Ruling,Hearing, or Resolution re Summary Judgment Motion 10)Motion for Expedited Ruling,Hearing, or Resolution re Summary Judgment Motion 10 76 Kb
Download this file (Obama, Plaintiff\'s Motion for Summary Judgment against Obama and the DNC.pdf)Obama, Plaintiff\'s Motion for Summary Judgment against Obama and the DNC.pdf 250 Kb
Add Comment (100)
Hits: 2243
Last Updated ( Thursday, 23 October 2008 15:14 )

WorldNetDaily: Obama 'admits' Kenyan birth? Campaign doesn't respond to claims in lawsuit over birth certificate
Thursday, 23 October 2008 21:05 administrator Main - News
E-mail Print PDF

October 21, 2008 | By Drew Zahn | © 2008 WorldNetDaily

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."

Complete article at WorldNetDaily.com

http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/?pageId=2256

With the worst drop in the Dow Jones Industrial average in over 20 years, fears of a deep recession mount. Over all, investors lost about $1.1 trillion in U.S. stock-market value on Wednesday, as Dow plummeted 733.08 points, making this the largest percentage drop since October 1987, and economists fear the worst. Are we heading in a downward spiral? With so much instability, what can investors do?

Making some steps to manage your spending can help you position yourself to survive a financial setback such as getting laid off from your job.

In an interview with a local Seacoast financial consultant who asked to "be off the record," he suggested the following:

• Be prepared, but stay optimistic
• Look past today’s news and anticipate recovery
• Pay down loan balances and earn a guaranteed return
• Keep money in stocks
• Don’t chase yield
• Look for value pays/ Some companies that you liked in good times but have been hit in today's markets may represent buying opportunities.

I think one of the most important things we can do, first and foremost, is to stay informed, and stay POSITIVE!

I have posted a ridiculously ignorant article written to obviously bash Sarah Palin. Of course, this writer should at the very least use spell check, for it appears whoever edited this prior to publishing, did not catch the spelling errors. (LOL)

I realize this is a publication out of the UK, but I have major challenges with media journalists who fabricate and look for every angle to misrepresent someone or something. I don't mind effectual, good, honest criticism, but I have serious problems with writers who are groping, looking under ever rug, and in every corner for things that are just ridiculous. It frankly cheapens their work, and in my estimation moves their writing into the zone of "Tabloid journalism," which is ineffectual and pathetic. Speaking of "sinking low..." this kind of writing is at the bottom of the barrel. Ugh.

Cif America
Flirting her way to victory
Sarah Palin's farcical debate performance lowered the standards for both female candidates and US political discourse

Sarah Palin winks during the vice-presidential debate on Thursday in St Louis, Missouri. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP

At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have universally noted, discussed and mocked. Palin, however, has single-handedly so lowered the standards both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is now deemed to have performed acceptably last night.

By any normal standard, including the ones applied to male presidential candidates of either party, she did not. Early on, she made the astonishing announcement that she had no intentions of actually answering the queries put to her. "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also," she said.

And so she preceded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity.

It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of "average Americans" who they both venerate and despise.

In pronouncing upon a debate, they don't try and determine whether a candidate's responses correspond to existing reality, or whether he or she is capable of talking about subjects such as the deregulation of the financial markets or the devolution of the war in Afghanistan. The criteria are far more vaporous. In this case, it was whether Palin could avoid utterly humiliating herself for 90 minutes, and whether urbane commentators would believe that she had connected to a public that they see as ignorant and sentimental. For the Alaska governor, mission accomplished.

There is indeed something mesmerising (SPELL CHECK: MESMERIZING) (WHERE IS YOUR EDITOR?) about Palin, with her manic beaming and fulsome confidence in her own charm. The force of her personality managed to slightly obscure the insulting emptiness of her answers last night. It's worth reading the transcript of the encounter, where it becomes clearer how bizarre much of what she said was. Here, for example, is how she responded to Biden's comments about how the middle class has been short-changed during the Bush administration, and how McCain will continue Bush's policies:

Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced (SPELL CHECK: PREFERENCE)[sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education, and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? ... My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

Evidently, Palin's pre-debate handlers judged her incapable of speaking on a fairly wide range of subjects, and so instructed to her to simply disregard questions that did not invite memorised talking points or cutesy filibustering. They probably told her to play up her spunky average-ness, which she did to the point of shtick - and dishonesty. Asked what her achilles heel is - a question she either didn't understand or chose to ignore - she started in on how McCain chose her because of her "connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills?"

None of Palin's children, it should be noted, is heading off to college. Her son is on the way to Iraq, and her pregnant 17-year-old daughter is engaged to be married to a high-school dropout and self-described "BLEEP redneck". Palin is a woman who can't even tell the truth about the most quotidian and public details of her own life, never mind about matters of major public import. In her only vice-presidential debate, she was shallow, mendacious and phoney. (SPELL CHECK: PHONY) What kind of maverick, after all, keeps harping on what a maverick she is? That her performance was considered anything but a farce doesn't show how high Palin has risen, but how low we all have sunk.

This movie is predominantly centered on the two lead characters, played by Diane Lane and Richard Gere. It’s a nice reunion since “Unfaithful,” and once again, Adrienne (Lane) is pulled into a blissful affair with Paul (Gere) a somewhat mysterious doctor, while she attempts to regroup after her husband’s bout with infidelity. Adrienne is taking care of a friends North Carolina beach house resort, and quite conveniently, the M. D. is the only guest. Paul is on a long road to personal redemption after a failed marriage, an estranged relationship from his son Mark (James Franco), and wrongful death suit filed against him for a patient dying while under his knife. Franco’s role is a mere cameo roll.

Adrienne and Paul’s moments of exchange seem strained and awkward; until a hurricane almost literally blows them into each other’s arms, releasing unbridled passion. If Adrienne had any hopes about returning to her lousy marriage, the days and nights spent with Paul certainly change that. Love is in the air! While this newfound love is mildly plausible it is interrupted by the reality that both Adrienne and Paul have two very separate lives to go deal with. Alas, as fast as their relationship begins, the happy couple says good-bye and leaves with the hope of meeting again.

The film was adapted from Nicholas Spark, the renowned author of “The Notebook,” and while there are elements of sentimentality that are very present in “The Notebook,” this film seems to lose momentum from time to time. However, there are some touching scenes between Adrienne and Paul, amazing ocean vistas, and romantic expectation for the above 40 crowd, while dealing with loss and love.

Move over summer! A new school year has begun! There is a shift in the air, and a shift in the tempo as families re-adapt to early morning schedules, homework demands, and bedtime restrictions. While the tempo has changed, it appears that the methods of learning may well need to be readdressed. In a recent national survey, 2 out of 3 high-school students claim they are bored in class every single day. About 30% attributes this boredom due to lack of interaction with teachers, but 75% claim the materials taught are not interesting. According to the survey, it is conceivable that 1 out of three students are sitting in class not interacting with a teacher on a daily basis, and perhaps never at all.

Not only do parents face organizational challenges with the start of the school year, teachers are facing the daunting reality that many students are bored with text. One elementary school teacher from Boston when asked her opinion said, “Kids are not learning effectively with today’s methods. I believe part of it has to do with their need for electronic stimulation. The textbooks are boring, because our kids are used to being entertained. Think about it: When is the last time you walked anywhere and didn’t see kids of all ages text messaging, walking around with earphones clued to their heads and ipods in their hands. Teachers do not stand a chance against the deluge of electronic stimulation that consumes about 90% of our youth today.” How do teachers and administration deal effectively with this increasing problem? It appears consuming media has far surpassed reading storybooks, or playing dress-up as the average American child’s favorite pastime. Overall, children between the ages of 2 and 18 spend an average of almost five-and-a-half hours a day at home watching television, playing computer games, surfing the web, listening to their Ipods, and text messaging on their cell phones. A kid’s idea of multitasking today, is juggling a text message, a phone call, while keeping one of their earpieces glued to their Ipod attached to their ear.

How does all this media use affect children’s cognitive, emotional and social development? Researchers and teachers alike are searching for answers and taking the question much more seriously. Dr. Sandra Calvert, a professor of psychology at Georgetown University, and the principle investigator and director of the Children’s Media Center said, “American children now grow up with electronic media at their fingertips. Yet there are important gaps in our knowledge about the role of interactive media in children’s healthy development. For years psychologists and educators have been watching these issues escalate, but so far, they have not been able to come up with any concrete answers in dealing with the digital giant.

Between the lurking apathy in many of our high school students, and the inability teachers and publishers have had to stimulate a drive to learn, it may be time to take another tack, before the dropout rate continues to escalate to alarming proportions.

Copyright2008©CCovetti

Is Shelley Darlington (played by Anna Faris) really able to teach a house of sorority girls what boys are really like? Doubtful, but in Columbia Pictures movie called, “House Bunny,” there is a clear message of “heart” vs. exterior,” and the age-old cliché, “never judge a book by its cover” fits nicely.

Faris (who looks more like Goldie Hawn than Kate Hudson) plays the part of the innocent, adorable, ditzy blonde, who happens to have a heart of gold. While Faris gives an endearing performance, the storyline is horribly predictable, and filmmaker Fred Wolf should have taken this film out of the playgirl/playmate power girl zone. Shelley Darlington faces a “life-altering” dilemma: She has been ousted out of the Playboy Mansion by Hugh Heffner himself, and takes up residence as the “house mom” in a sorority house filled with less-than attractive feminists. Naturally, her new life challenge is to transform these rebels i nto respectable “bimbos.”

The film is cute and funny, but most of the laughs stem around the playgirl way of thinking. Amid Shelley Darlington’s predictable role, there does seem to be a deeper message lost in a myriad of silicon madness: That deeper relationships demand actual intellectual ability…at least the lasting ones. In a similar fashion to movies like, “Clueless,” “Legally Blonde,” and even the old famed Marilyn Monroe film, “Some Like It Hot,” “House Bunny,” is a cute recipe for predictability!”

Link to the original post : http://www.flakcircle.com