____________________________________

ParrotNewsReport.com/cj (Citizen Journalist Blog)

ParrotNewsReport.com (All the news at at glance)


Friday, December 4, 2009

The man child president barack obama

Conservative Talk Show host blasts Barack Obama as being the “Man-Child President”. Rush states that Obama is immature and that he is a child.

“He has a five minute career. He was in the senate for 150 days. He was a community organizer in Chicago for however number of years. He really has no experience running anything. I think he has got an out of this world ego. I think he is very narcissistic. He’s able to focus all attention on him all the time.”

“He is immature, inexperienced and in over his head.”
........................................................................................................................
I agree Rush obama is a "man child". This term as it is applied here does not refer to a child being born a male. It is referring to a man who has the mind of a child or Adolescent. Obama is an immature male. A person who lacks the ability to think and perform as a mature adult. Every aspect of obama's personality is controlled by his "inner" child. This is why he has made so many immature quotes. This accounts for his Indecision and lack of leadership. Obama depends on others to "lead" him to the teleprompter so he will appear to be a mature adult. In fact obama is retarded. His emotional growth is stunted. Obama emotionally in his teens or early 20's.

Obama still has the emotions of a kid. That's not a compliment. His mood can change on a dime, and he doesn't seem to have much control over his feelings. And while people may put up with your antics, they truly don't like them! Obama needs to grow up and take responsibility for how he acts.
.....................................................................................................................
How Emotionally Mature Is Obama? Answer The Questions for Obama And See If He Could Answer Yes To Any Of Thses Questions
.....................................................................................................................

  • You know that jealousy only harms your relationships, and you are able to avoid it.

  • You are can deal with anxiety easily and quickly.

  • You believe that changing other people is futile - you only try to change yourself.

  • You know that you're not perfect, and you're totally okay with your flaws.

  • It's easy for you to love someone.

  • When you encounter a problem, you try to solve it quickly. Thinking about it only makes it worse.

  • Rejections in your life have definitely hurt, but you have always been able to move on from them quickly.

  • You are a very honest person. You have principles that you live by.

  • You enjoy giving more than receiving.

  • When you are angry with someone, you don't hold on to your anger. You make your feelings known and then move on.


Obama would not be able to answer yes to any of these questions. If he could answer yes to a few his maturity level would rise. Therefore his maturity level is lower than a normal adult. Obama is not a normal mature adult. Obama is a man/child. Obama is retarded. Obama is a threat to all America because obama is "stuck on stupid".
................................................................................................................................................

Adolescents typically think in concrete ways, meaning they have difficulty with abstract and symbolic concepts. Their thinking tends to be focused on the present. They are just beginning to be able to gather information from experience, analyze information, and make critical decisions about future choices and consequences.

Cognitive development. Teens gradually develop the ability to think in more sophisticated, abstract ways—perceiving issues in shades of gray instead of black and white, and gaining a better understanding of concepts like morality, consequence, objectivity, and empathy. It can sometimes be difficult to deal with teens during this time because, although they understand that others have differing viewpoints, they often firmly believe their perception is the most true or valid.

...................................................................................................................................................

This study compares the responses of 58 adolescent and 58 adult school leaders on the Leadership Traits Inventory. Adolescent leaders rank integrity, good listening, and knowledge or skills highest and rank compassion, consistency, and flexibility lowest. Adult leaders, in comparison, rank sense of purpose, integrity, and knowledge or skills highest and rank flexibility, compassion, and creativity lowest. Rank-order differences between the groups are significant. Adolescent leaders rank good listening and creativity significantly higher than adult leaders. Adults rank sense of purpose, consistency, and flexibility significantly higher than adolescents. The results are viewed in terms of leadership qualities, gender, and the developmental differences between adolescents and adults.

Obama has no integrity. Obama has no consistency. Obama has little to no creativity. Obama has little to no compassion. Obama's flexibility can be compared to the scarecrow in the wizard of oz. Obama has little to no knowledge or skill except community organizing. Obama listens but can't comprehend or act on what his generals tell him etc.

Obama is an adolescent leader. A man/child as Rush explains. This is why obama has failed at every turn.

........................................................................................................

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Commander in FREAK


...........................................................................................

Obama's face says it all. He is a FREAK that puts on freak shows. Ugly obama.
...........................................................................................

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Just in Time for the Campaign

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars," he added.

It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.

Obama's Magic No Longer Works

But in this case, the public was more disturbed than entertained. Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent weeks: Obama's magic no longer works. The allure of his words has grown weaker.

It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives -- their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.

Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners -- particularly those with a talent for oration -- are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called "Hope."

In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.

The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.


( Like I said obama is just a FREAK that puts on freak shows using a teleprompter.)

Monday, November 30, 2009

Climate change data dumped



Climate change data dumped

The original data was dumped or erased. No one can verify how the University of East Anglia (UEA) used calculations to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. Also the computer program used to calculate the data was manipulated to skew the numbers in favor of the HOAX.

Computer program skewed to prove global warming HOAX

Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

(I find it extremely interesting that the data barack obama and the un are using CANNOT BE VERIFIED BY ANYONE!!!!)

This same pattern is repeated over and over by the US government. No one can verify where all the tarp money went. No one can verify the obama jobs numbers on his stimulus jobs site. No on can verify who obama is by his "certification of live birth" because it does not contain the data necessary as would obama's original long form certificate of live birth.

The numbers for the "swine" epidemic cannot be verified and are overly estimated.

Obama miscalculated the unemployment numbers. Obama miscalculated the money needed for the cars for clunkers program. Obama time after time has made procedural errors and miscalculations all the while fostering an fake environment of America's recovery. Obama estimates jobs saved while unemployment numbers have continued month after month. He acts as if its good news when 300,000 instead of 400,000 have lost their jobs. If it was just 100,000 jobs lost it still is an obama disaster.

Obama has FAKED the "health care crisis" to seal America's fate to socialism. The health care numbers are a hoax also. Americans will receive less health care under government run health care and it will cost more. Obama via pelosi will fine Americans if they don't buy government health insurance. Obama is a criminal who should be arrested and tried for high crimes of treason!

Obama, Gore and the UN are playing the numbers game to fool the public. The public is waking up to the fact obama, gore and the un are lying. Story Reports
...........................................................................................

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.


(All the numbers from the UEA scientists and the UN are pure fiction. They have been exposed as FRAUDS but still are trying to sell the lie of global warming as is obama.)

Global warming numbers cannot be verified. Global warming is a hoax.

The Fudge Factor Of "Global Warming"



The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam
By John Coleman
January 28, 2009 (Revised and edited February 11, 2009)

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming." That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.

So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man. The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.

That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.

Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.

Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

(Yes Jack you were right and now we know some of the Hoax and Fraud of the "global warming SCAM. The computer program below is explained and shows the program was FIXED to fudge the numbers to make "global warming or climate change" more of a "reality" when it fact it was all manufactured and FAKE numbers in a computer program!) Story Reports


******************************************************************************************
..........................................................................................
CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered
..........................................................................................

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

Getting with the Green Program(s)

By Marc Sheppard

As the evidence of fraud at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climatic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who've been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media. But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the e-mails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that's been perpetrated, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.

First, let's briefly review a few pertinent details.

We reported on Saturday that among the most revealing of the "hacked" e-mails released last week was one dated November 1999, in which CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote these words to Hockey-Stick-Team leaders Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Predictably, the suggestion of a climate-related data-adjusting "trick" being employed by such alarmist bellwethers ten years ago instantly raised more than a few eyebrows. And with similar alacrity, the Big Green Scare Machine shifted into CYA gear.

Almost immediately after the news hit on Friday, Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition [PDF] that he "had no idea" what he might have meant by the words "hide the decline" a decade prior:

They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they're talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it's just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.

Baloney.

Mere hours later, Jones's warmist soulmates at RealClimate offered an entirely different explanation:

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the "trick" is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the "decline", it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while "hiding" is probably a poor choice of words (since it is "hidden" in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

And later that day, Jean S. at Climate Audit explained the reality of the quandary. In order to smooth a timed series, it's necessary to pad it beyond the end-time. But it seems that however hard they tried, when MBH plotted instrumental data against their tree ring reconstructions, no smoothing method would ever undo the fact that after 1960, the tree ring series pointed downward while the instrumental series pointed upward -- hence the divergence:

So Mann’s solution [Mike’s Nature Trick] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.

So the author of the email claimed the "trick" was to add instrumental measurements for years beyond available proxy data, his co-conspirators at Real Climate admitted it was actually a replacement of proxy data due to a known yet inexplicable post-1960 "divergence" anomaly, and CA called it what it was -- a cheat.

The next day, the UEA spoke out for the first time on the subject when its first related press-release was posted to its homepage. And Jones demonstrated to the world the benefits a good night's sleep imparts to one's memory, though not one's integrity:


The word "trick" was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.

Tick-tock.

Of course, RealClimate also avowed there was "no evidence of the falsifying of data" in the emails. But as Jones chose not to walk back his statement that the "tricks" were rarely exercised, and even assured us that he was "refer[ring] to one diagram -- not a scientific paper," his explanation remained at odds with that of his virtual confederates at RC.

And as Jones must have known at the time, such would prove to be the very least of CRU's problems.

Getting with the Green Program(s)

One can only imagine the angst suffered daily by the co-conspirators, who knew full well that the "Documents" sub-folder of the CRU FOI2009 file contained more than enough probative program source code to unmask CRU's phantom methodology.

In fact, there are hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files buried in dozens of subordinate sub-folders. And many do properly analyze and chart maximum latewood density (MXD), the growth parameter commonly utilized by CRU scientists as a temperature proxy, from raw or legitimately normalized data. Ah, but many do so much more.

Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these "alterations" run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g., omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g., estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).

In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 "divergence problem," as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code. So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer's comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module "Uses 'corrected' MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

What exactly is meant by "corrected” MXD," you ask? Outstanding question -- and the answer appears amorphous from program to program. Indeed, while some employ one or two of the aforementioned "corrections," others throw everything but the kitchen sink at the raw data prior to output.

For instance, in the subfolder "osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog," there’s a program (Calibrate_mxd.pro) that calibrates the MXD data against available local instrumental summer (growing season) temperatures between 1911-1990, then merges that data into a new file. That file is then digested and further modified by another program (Pl_calibmxd1.pro), which creates calibration statistics for the MXD against the stored temperature and "estimates" (infills) figures where such temperature readings were not available. The file created by that program is modified once again by Pl_Decline.pro, which "corrects it" – as described by the author -- by "identifying" and "artificially" removing "the decline."

But oddly enough, the series doesn’t begin its "decline adjustment" in 1960 -- the supposed year of the enigmatic "divergence." In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to "correction."

And such games are by no means unique to the folder attributed to Michael Mann.

A Clear and Present Rearranger

In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

And the former apparently wasn't a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.

Plotting programs such as data4alps.pro print this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart:

IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.

Others, such as mxdgrid2ascii.pro, issue this warning:

NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).

Care to offer another explanation, Dr. Jones?

(Its all fake numbers out of a computer! Al Gore is just a fake recounting fake numbers from a fake computer program!) Story Reports

CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered

..........................................................................................

So why did Gore lose Tennessee on Nov. 7 -- the first time a presidential candidate has failed to win his own state since George McGovern lost his native South Dakota in 1972?

The usual press analysis is that Tennessee's demographics have changed, sending the once-Democratic stronghold tipping to the Republican Party. Sen. Fred Thompson and Gov. Don Sundquist have echoed this idea, while Rep. Bill Jenkins, from historically Republican upper east Tennessee, noted in an Associated Press report that "Tennessee didn't leave Gore. Gore left Tennessee." He pointed to Gore's changing stance on gun control and abortion as bellwethers.

Yet, while these issues may have played a role, the answer is far more fundamental than that.

"It was the character issue," says popular Nashville radio talk host Phil Valentine. "Thanks to talk radio and sources like WorldNetDaily getting out the truth, I believe it tipped the state to Bush."

Valentine initially broke a story on Gore's ties to alleged criminal figures in Wilson County, Tenn., next door to Gore's home county. Shortly after that, WorldNetDaily ran a series of investigative reports detailing Gore's involvement in and interference with criminal investigations linked to his uncle, retired judge Whit LaFon and top campaign fundraisers like Clark Jones, of Savannah, Tenn. According to Valentine, it was stories like those that spelled Gore's defeat.

"They [the stories] stayed under the radar nationally," he said, "but around here they were on everyone's lips."

It still is a character issue and al gore's character has not improved but has degraded to the point he will LIE about anything to support his global warming theory. Al gore is a con artist and thug just like barack obama.

Why Al Gore lost the 2000 election

Leo Donofrio says his blog is taking to much of his time


...........................................................................................
Leo Donofrio is 'PUNTING" the 'BALL' and says quote, "The blog is taking too much of my time and energy." If this is true Leo has wasted my time as others. I have followed Leo on his blog and was inspired by him to believe obama could be exposed as a FRAUD through Quo Qarranto. Leo explained the process and documented how it could be done. Now Leo has removed all his documented information and left us all 'out to dry'. One day Leo exclaims he will not give up and the next he says he does not have enough time all of a sudden. I have documented some of Leo's outstanding work about Quo Warranto. I thought it was worthy of documenting and trying to disseminate. I can't believe Leo is giving up. He did this once before and later starting informing us again. Leo don't give up and don't let us down!
...........................................................................................

Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons”.

The information Leo posted on Oct 8, 2009 explains how Americans can expose obama as a FRAUD. This post is important to all who want to know how to expose obama as an imposter. Leo is correct I believe. This will work. I can't understand why Leo did not bring this action in the DC Court or represent someone who was directly injured by obama such as Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin.

Leo has deleted this information from his blog but it is still cached by google.
Quo Warranto For Interested Persons
...........................................................................................

Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.

An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.

One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court. These facts are not in the complaint before Judge Carter. Why not?

16-3503 states:

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…

Plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama allege that they have standing which is unique and special compared to the public at large. Therefore, they should have availed themselves of 16-3503.

But they’ve never even tried.

Plaintiffs have only attempted to avail themselves of 16-3502. All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

But if you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.

The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.

Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently. For example, facts concerning what makes the President ineligible have nothing to do with the particular plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama. So there’s no need for them to travel across the country for the trial. The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.

There’s nothing stopping the plaintiffs from petitioning the DC District Court right now based upon facts known and verifiable as to the President’s British birth.

Why has this option been ignored? 16-3503 provides an excellent chance for review of these facts. There it is. Why not use it? A golden opportunity is being thrown by the way side.

Either the DC District Court will agree that these military persons are “interested persons” or it will not. Either the DC District Court will agree that 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes is an “interested person” or it will not.

If the DC District Court does not agree that these plaintiffs are “interested persons” under the statute, then plaintiffs can make the same arguments they are making now before Judge Carter.

I don’t see any tactical advantage at all in avoiding the DC District Court.

Why give one of your tickets away for free? Why give away your best ticket for free? Why not avail yourself of the very statute created by Congress to review the eligibility of all US national office holders?

Doing so also avoids “political question doctrine” issues because the quo warranto statute is a congressional exercise of Constitutional authority to review the President’s eligibility. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Also, all arguments that a quo warranto action is too late now that he’s been sworn in are just patently bogus.

Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.

Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.

Look people, I’m trying to help. Read this over a few times until it sinks in.
.........................................................................................

Leo I read this over a few times. I agree. Why have you deserted America and punted? Story Reports
.........................................................................................

THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

Leo has deleted this information but I have preserved it for your information and mine.

Leo is the citizen lawyer that has inspired me and others to believe the system can still work if applied correctly. Leo has prsented enough information for any US citizen or other interested person to explore the option of using Quo Warranto to expose the FRAUD obama. I wish I knew if any other lawyer or interested party has attempted to use Quo Warranto to expose the IMPOSTER obama. I believe this is possible. Of course I don't know how the DC Court would respond.

I appeal again to Leo Donofrio to file a Quo Warranto in Dc Court before giving up on America and all those who believe in the possiblity of removing obama from office because of Quo Warranto.Story Reports


THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER I
ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Actions Against Officers Of The United States QUO WARRANTO Chaper 35 Sub Chapter I

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER II
ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OR CORPORATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Actions Against Officers Or Corporations Of The District Of Columbia

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER III
PROCEDURES AND JUDGMENTS

Procedures And Judgments

..........................................................................................

Constitution.org Quo Warranto

§ 4.19 STANDING — PRIVATE PERSONS SUING IN OWN NAME UNDER STATUTES PERMITTING WITH LEAVE OF COURT

It is now fairly common for states by statute or court rule to allow private individuals, under certain circumstances at least, to bring actions in quo warranto (or its modern equivalent) with leave granted by court.’

Frequently by statute or rule the individual seeking leave must be an “interested person.”

Other courts have often said that “a person who has no greater interest than the public generally cannot maintain an action….”4 Generally claimants to the public office involved have been accepted as “interested persons,”5 and there has been expressed at times the unfortunate notion that only such claimants are “specially interested.”6

Statutes authorizing private persons to bring quo warranto in their own names customarily require them to post security for costs.17

§ 4.21 STANDING – PRIVATE PERSONS BRINGING IN OWN NAME UNDER STATUTES AUTHORIZING SAME AFTER ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS REFUSED TO BRING ACTION

Statutes and rules of court in a number of jurisdictions permit private individuals to bring quo warranto, either in their own name or in the name of the state, after they have requested the attorney general to commence such action and he has refused.l

Notwithstanding the unqualified language of the statutes, e.g. “a private person,” “any citizen,” “any elector”, courts operating under these statutes have been inclined to rule that persons generally cannot bring quo warranto under these statutes, but that the action can be brought only by individuals with special interests.2

The appellate courts add: “The private interest alleged must be directly, substantially and adversely affected by the action sought to be challenged in the quo warranto proceeding. The damage to that private interest must be then occurring or certain to occur; the petitioner cannot rely on an expected damage to his private interest.” Significantly, the court adds that “the private interest of one citizen may be an interest shared by other members of the community for purposes of establishing quo warranto standing.”6

§ 4.26 THE INITIAL PLEADING OF THE APPLICANT – THE COMPLAINT, PETITION OR INFORMATION

Generally, as in other civil actions, the initial pleading of an applicant for quo warranto or its statutory equivalent is denominated a complaint.1 Occasionally it is referred to as a petition,2 or an information.3

When the attorney general brings the action in quo warranto in vindication of a public right, it has customarily only been necessary that he allege in general terms that the defendant is unlawfully usurping a public office or franchise, there being no need to set forth the particular facts.4 Even when a private individual is bringing this kind of action to vindicate public rights, it has not ordinarily been necessary for him to do more than allege the defendant was usurping the public office or franchise without lawful authority.5 The rule permitting such broad pleading has often been criticized, and modern statutes have been drawn so as to require greater specificity.6

When an individual is the real party in interest in bringing action for quo warranto, his pleading must positively, with certainty and specificity set forth the facts on which he relies.7 They must be set forth clearly and without ambiguity,8 sufficient to indicate the unlawful nature of the defendant’s actions.9 Legal conclusions are not sufficient.10 In some states the complaint must allege that the individual seeking relief has a private interest in the matter and that the action sought to be challenged by quo warranto has harmed that interest.11 When an individual making application for quo warranto is able, as under many statutes, to assert his own claim to the office occupied by the incumbent defendant, the plaintiff must set forth facts indicating his own right to the office.12

(Record Master)
Who can allege their interests were harmed? Who has a private interest? Who can assert their own claim to the office occupied by the incumbent defendent? Who can set forth the facts and is considered a “real party” in interest in bringing action for quo warranto?

SARAH PALIN
She is an individual that is the real party in interest in bringing action for quo warranto.

Sara Palin could file a complaint/petition via the federal quo warranto statute at 16-3501:

“A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.”

Leo D.
As you can see, the statute is very specific. The office of President is in the District of Columbia. The District Court for the District of Columbia is the only court which has the authority to hear a quo warranto complaint to remove a US national office holder from the District of Columbia .

The only remaining statute which controls quo warranto is the District of Columbia Code. And all actions brought thereunder must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
C. Quo Warranto Claims (Judge Carter Ruling)

Plaintiffs encourage the Court to issue a quo warranto writ against President Obama
challenging the President’s right to hold his office. The Complaint recognizes that the District of Columbia would be the appropriate district in which to bring this writ, but alleges that bringing this request to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would be futile because the United States Attorney is biased and Judge Robertson within that district had already rejected a similar case in which President Obama’s qualifications were challenged.

Compl. ¶¶ 32 – 35.
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because
President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

At oral argument, Plaintiffs encouraged the Court to apply the District of Columbia’s quo
warranto statute pursuant to California choice-of-law provisions because the District of
Columbia is the residence of Defendants. Plaintiffs’ contention is wholly misplaced because,
while this Court can apply the law of other jurisdictions where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs’ quo warranto demand is hereby DISMISSED for improper venue.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Judge Cater Ruling Case No SACV 09-0082 DOC-AN 10/29/2009

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE.

Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President. The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions. A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion. This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.

The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. It’s really that simple. Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.

QUO WARRANTO

Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts – Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.

There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.

The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.

Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.

Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.

The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.

JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.

Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.

The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.

This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.

Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:

C. Quo Warranto Claims…

The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue. (Leo Donofrio)

.........................................................................................

Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin could today bring obama to his knees if she would petition the DC District Court by using the Quo Warranto Federal Law In Washington DC.

Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin can challenge obama as an ursurper to the office of the President and succeed.

Sarah, Geral why have you not done this? I have not heard you speak of any challenge to Obama.

America is waiting for you to take action. America needs you to seek to remove obama because he was not a natural born citizen at birth. You have standing with the DC District Court through Quo Warranto.

Please expose obama before it is too late!!

Quo Warranto Information At Constitution.org

..........................................................................................
Leo 'our quaterback' was moving the 'ball' down the field of Quo Warranto with this information below. It is the template or outline for a "game changer". Our 'quarter back' has now punted for 'less points'. I want to win Leo. I didn't want to settle for 'less points'. Leo has left the 'game' because he is injured. I think Leo is frustrated with other lawyers who have used the system incorrectly. I hope Leo is able to return to the "game" soon and take the "ball", "Quo Warranto" to the Dc Court and win the "game"!

..........................................................................................
Leo Donofrio

“The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion…”

“By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.”

“IN ANY CASE THEY DEEM PROPER.”

- There is no qualification that there be a certain amount of evidence one way or the other.

- There is no qualification that the officials must consider public opinion or political party affiliation.

- There is no “standing” to prove. If your title is US Attorney General or United States attorney, you have standing.

- There is no need to consult with Congress because, as SCOTUS noted in their opinion, Congress has already acted on the issue by enacting the quo warranto statute.

All that is required is that the official deems a quo warranto statute proper. His discretion is unassailable judicially.

Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue. And like the waters over New Orleans levees, this floodgate has the ability to wreak havoc on our nation.

Regardless of whether one believes Obama’s online COLB is real, no citizen can tell the Government to check a web site for their birth certificate rather than bring it in to the DMV or send it to the federal Government for a passport. You have to actually mail your BC in to them if you don’t bring it in person.

I recognize that the Constitution does not require a birth certificate as a qualification, but that’s not the issue anymore.

The issue is whether the Attorney General and/or a United States attorney deems it proper for Obama to provide the same proof of identity as ordinary citizens in order to avoid FORESEEABLE complications which are destined to rot public faith.

Obama ought to encourage these officials to institute an action in quo warranto for the good of the nation and for the good of his own legacy.

THREE WAYS TO BRING QUO WARRANTO

1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion – which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.

2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as “third persons” and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then “interested persons” may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be – according to SCOTUS in Newman – restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

3. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF TITLE 16 CHAPTER 35 (Quo Warranto) OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE.

Chapter 35 is entitled “QUO WARRANTO”. Subchapter I is entitled “Actions Against Officers of the United States.” Subchapter II is entitled “Actions Against Officers or Corporations of the District of Columbia“. Please note that the original DC quo warranto statute was first enacted in 1901. While SCOTUS interpreted that statute as controlling national officers, Congress modified the statute in 1963 to its current form which erases any possible doubt that the statute applies to all Officers of the United States.

Furthermore, the District of Columbia Code is federal law. It’s enacted by Congress and the actual United States Constitution is included in the District of Columbia code. I have seen the most erroneous comments online wherein it has been argued that a “local DC code is not federal law”. Besides the ultimate federal law – the Constitution – being placed directly in the DC code, SCOTUS has stated – in the seminal quo warranto DC code case, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) – that the District Code applies to all…

“…actions in quo warranto instituted by authorized parties against national officers of the United States, they are general laws of the United States, and not merely local laws of the District of Columbia…”

I must reiterate that the code’s text does not provide any exceptions for any public office, not even POTUS.

CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, ie POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

.........................................................................................
Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Out Obama.

I have recorded additional information Leo Donofrio has written about Quo Warranto. This information is available at the link below and I will post it again here. Leo explains Juge Carter's ruling and documents how the door was left open to Quo Warranto. Leo you need to walk through the door you were talking about for America.

.........................................................................................

Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Out Obama.

Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Out Obama.

Leo Donofrio

Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.

Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.

“The DC District Court”, has the power, “to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President.”

JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.

QUO WARRANTO

Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts – Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.

There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.

The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own.

The Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.

Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.

The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.

(Leo will you test it? Can you follow through with the 'conflict'? Don't let America down)
..........................................................................................
Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:
..........................................................................................

C. Quo Warranto Claims…

The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue. (Leo Donofrio)

..........................................................................................

Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons

Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.

An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.

One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.

16-3503 states:

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…

All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

If you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.

The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.

Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently.

The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.

Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.

Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.
.........................................................................................
Leo Explains Quo Warranto Radio Interview


..........................................................................................

quo warranto

“By what warrant do you hold office”?

The DOJ is now in direct conflict of interest by defending him in the Barnett case. But for 16-3503 their permission is not necessary. The statute says the case may be prosecuted by “any attorney”.

How Congress Is Sanitizing The Natural Born Issue

Everyone needs to read this report. It’s truly one of the best articles ever written on the natural born citizen issue. Leo D.

..........................................................................................
..........................................................................................
What a citizen can do to EXPOSE THE FRAUD obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..........................................................................................
..........................................................................................

Apply to DOJ is first step. If they refuse and you are an “interested person” then according to 16-3503 you may go before the court without their permission to use the name of the US…if the court finds your petition sufficient in law then the writ will issue and the President will stand trial.

Remember:

All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

(Lets All Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding!) Story Reports

*****************************************************************************************
NOTE HOW TO EXPOSE THE FRAUD OBAMA IN DC COURT!
*****************************************************************************************

Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.

An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.

One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.

16-3503 states:

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…

All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

Don’t get confused. Unless your an intersted person under 16-3503 you need permission to go before the court.

*****Everybody: 16-3502*****

Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Then you become an “interested person” and sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.

This is what I can do and any US citizen that is not an "interested person" such as Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin for example. These two people have injured by obama and can go directly to the DC Court.

Leo has provided the template. Leo has deleted the template from his blog. I have preserved it. Leo stated it was for our use. I urge Americans to use this procedure that Leo has said will work. I also believe it will if applied as Leo has explained. I am disappointed that leo has deleted this excellent information on his blog for us to use. Leo must have known someone would preseve it

Comments On

Leo Donofrio says he is to busy

'Quo Warranto for 'Interested Persons'' - Leo Donofrio; Plus Related Items: Are You 'Interested?' InvestigatingObama.com