Friday, October 30, 2009
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Monday that the Senate's version of a health care reform bill will include a so-called public option. Moveon.org issued its e-mail to its supporters threatening revolt one day later.
The group said it surveyed its members over the weekend and found that "93 percent of MoveOn members agreed that any senator who helps block an up-or-down vote on a health care bill with the public option should lose the support of all five million of us -- no donations, no volunteering, and no help getting out the vote."
To ensure conservative Democrats will not oppose the public option, the group is launching an "emergency campaign" to urge them to support an up-or-down vote
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com
Wyatt Frazer and Della Murphy allege in a federal lawsuit that they were forced off the Police, Fire and Civil Service Board for their advocacy of a white candidate when the chief's job was open in 2007.
Their lawyer said Tuesday the spurned candidate was Ronald Grimming, a Metro East resident who rose to be deputy superintendent of the State Police before taking the top spot in Florida in 1993. Grimming could not be reached for comment.
The suit against Mayor Alvin Parks, City Manager Robert Betts and the city itself does not identify Grimming by name or qualifications.
On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid. More...
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Until we take the threat of jihad right here at home seriously, we continue to put our security and our very way of life at risk.
We've all been told that falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not
covered under "free speech."
However, it seems that shouting "Allah Allah Allah!" while playing Musical
Chairs on a crowded airplane is not only free speech, but a matter of "civil
Remember the case of the "flying imams?" (No, it's not a Nancy Drew
mystery.) Back in November of 2006, six Islamic clerics were booked to fly
from Minneapolis to Phoenix on US Airways Flight
600. According to worried passengers, the imams not only prominently prayed
at the gate, cursed U.S. policies in Iraq and discussed Osama bin Laden but
once on board, scattered to various seats throughout the aircraft and even
made a show of trading places. Two asked for seat belt extenders, although
neither was overweight. Passengers also reported hearing them yell, "Allah
Worried for the safety of his plane and its passengers, the pilot ordered
them removed and they were held at the airport until the FBI arrived.
The concern at the time, of course, was whether this was a "dry run,"
testing security procedures for a possible future hijacking - not
inconceivable based upon regrettable past experience.
When the imams filed suit against the passengers, the airline and airport
security, a law was passed by Congress that would protect citizens who, in
good faith, reported such suspicious behavior to law enforcement. The
Department of Transportation ruled that the airline
had acted properly. However, Judge Ann Montgomery of the U.S. District Court
in Minnesota allowed the remaining portion of the lawsuit, backed by CAIR,
to proceed because she ruled that the "John Doe" law did not apply to law
This week, a settlement between airport police and the imams was announced,
although the terms of the settlement were not released.
"The settlement of this case is a clear victory for justice and civil rights
over fear and the phenomenon of 'flying while Muslim' in the post-9/11 era,"
said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "We thank all those who
supported the imams through the lengthy and difficult legal process."
Civil rights? As the New York
Daily News said
basic rights, such as not being able to shop in any store you please or
being unable to apply for a job for which you are qualified, because of your
color or creed. It was the imams' behavior that concerned passengers and
flight crew, not their appearance.
But there's much more to this story.
It turns out that Omar Shahin, spokesman for the imams, helped raise funds
Land Foundation, a Muslim "charity" that illegally routed
more than $12 million to Hamas. A serious question has been raised
'flying imams' spectacle really an 'orchestrated stunt?'"
Either way, the real losers in this case are airline passengers and,
possibly, passengers on other types of public transit. While airport police
and other officials will certainly do all they can to prevent a terrorist
attack from happening, will they hesitate if the suspects are Muslim, for
fear of yet another lawsuit? Politically correct nonsense gets in the way of
common sense, and Islamists working covertly in the U.S. know it. As I
reported earlier this year
noted Islamic scholar Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch
<http://www.jihadwatch.org/> has their number:
In reality, Spencer says, America faces the same threat that Israel does
from Hamas. But the Muslim Brotherhood working here knows that they won't
get away with lobbing rockets or other violent tactics - thanks to the sharp
focus on Islamist organizations after 9/11 - so they must employ other
means. They work through organizations allied with them and their cause,
including the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, the
International Institute of Islamic Thought, the Islamic Society of North
, and others - including the now-defunct group Islamic Association for
Palestine, which gave rise to CAIR. According to Brotherhood spokesmen, they
are "working toward this goal of sabotaging Western civilization from
Again, Spencer brings us back to the mainstream media's role in all of this.
"They are working to intimidate the media into being afraid to discuss these
issues. And they have succeeded." Why? "Bigotry and racism are the national
traumas, they are the great sins of American history. And so the worst thing
you can be in America is a bigot or a racist." The Islamists in America use
this to their advantage, decrying every anti-terrorism initiative as
hateful, discriminatory and bigoted and smacking of racial profiling, and
portraying any honest discussion of these issues as such. The result is that
"most Americans have no idea this is going on, and so they have no idea of
what measures can and should be taken to counter it, and so it's able to
It doesn't matter that the imams didn't actually win in court; the
settlement is seen by Islamists as a capitulation and further erosion of
American values and security - especially coming on the heels of a rash of
five separate (homegrown
terror busts <http://www.cnn.com/2009/
the past couple of months. Add to that the recent case of "good ol' boy"
Daniel Patrick Boyd, a Muslim convert who allegedly headed a terror cell
in his native North Carolina
and we have a very serious problem.
Until we take the threat of jihad right here at home seriously, we continue
to put our security and our very way of life at risk.
Pam Meister is the editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Obama’s decision not to build the Missile Defense System in Poland and the Czech Republic and his Noble Prize have not yet been comprehended from a philosophical viewpoint. It’s time to do it.
Power of Money against Power of Spirit
The last turning point similar to the current one happened approximately 400 years ago. The Western European society discovered a new hierarchy of values. Feudalism that valued service and chivalry was replaced with capitalism. Wealth became the measure of success, and everyone was to care about his own pocket only. The cult of money replaced all other values, including religious.Capitalism turned everything upside down and made people more excited about stuffing their bank accounts than anything else. This system turned out to be extremely efficient in terms of production of goods, services, and comfort. America benefited from the system the most, and decided that the rest of the world has to adopt it as well. If some underdeveloped countries are unable to appreciate the benefits of capitalism, they should be forced to do it. More...
A: His followers don't think they're funny and everyone else doesn't think they're jokes.
Q: Why does Barack Obama oppose the Second Amendment?
A: It stands between him and the First.
Q: What's the difference between Rahm Emanuel and a carp?
A: One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish.
Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser.
Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One's full of tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for prisoners.
Q: What's the difference between a large pizza and the typical Obama backer?
A: The pizza can feed a family of four.
Q: If Pelosi and Obama were in a boat and it started to sink, who would be saved?
Q: What do you call the US after four years of Obama and the Liberal congress?
A: An Obama-nation.
Q: What's the difference between Obama and Hitler?
A: Hitler wrote his own book.
Q: What's another difference between Obama and Hitler?
A: Hitler got the Olympics to come to his country.
Q: Why doesn't Obama pray?
A: It's impossible to read the teleprompter with your eyes closed.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.
More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.
The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.
"The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said.
What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.
Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found.
And it should be no surprise that the city -- and Manhattan in particular -- suffered the biggest loss in terms of taxable income.
The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726. More...
UNITED NATIONS — Just weeks before an international conference on climate change, the United Nations signaled it was scaling back expectations of reaching agreement on a new treaty to slow global warming.
Janos Pasztor, director of the secretary-general's Climate Change Support Team, said Monday "it's hard to say how far the conference will be able to go" because the U.S. Congress has not agreed on a climate bill, and industrialized nations have not agreed on targets to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions or funding to help developing countries limit their discharges.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made a new climate treaty his top priority, hosting a Sept. 22 summit on climate change to spur political support and traveling extensively to build political momentum for a global agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which only requires 37 industrialized nations to cut emissions.
Pasztor told a news conference "there is tremendous activity by governments in capitals and internationally to shape the outcome" of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in early December, which "is a good development" because political leadership is essential to make a deal.
But he indicated that Copenhagen most likely won't produce a treaty, but instead will push governments as far as they can go on the content of an agreement
UN signals delay in climate change treaty...
- Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman says he opposes any sort of public option, even with an opt-out provision. Photo: AP
Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid’s has said the Senate bill will.
"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."
When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.
A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed.
But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.
"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end." More...
On September 20, 2009, Obama appeared on five Sunday morning news shows in one day -- Fox News Sunday was not included. Two weeks later, following what the New York Times referred to as a “Fox Summit” between Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News, and David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Obama, Fox News was told they wouldn’t get to conduct any Obama interviews in the foreseeable future and all members of the administration, from the top down, were ordered to stay off Fox News.
When it was learned that the reason for the administration’s animosity toward Fox News was based in part on the network’s coverage of Obamacare and Glenn Beck’s opposition to bringing the Olympics to the Chicago, Fox News’ Chris Wallace called Obama a “crybaby” and the battle began. More...
Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer as he spoke to the Ce More..
LiveLeak.com - Dr. Krauthammer
Preparing for Service in the Rebuilt Temple
(IsraelNN.com) Jews in the town of Mitzpe Yericho are taking practical steps to prepare for the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, by preparing descendents of Cohanim (priests) and Levites for service. At the Mitzpe Yericho school, Temple priest hopefuls learn exactly how to conduct the daily Temple service and offer the required sacrifices. More...
by Bill Sardi
Wired.com, that Conde Nast online publication that caters to techy people, has published a wave of articles critical of those who oppose massive over-vaccination of the American population.
These articles declare those individuals who oppose mass vaccination to be "misinformants." Celebrities like Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, Don Imus and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who openly oppose submission to mass vaccination, are belittled. These articles claim those who don’t get vaccinated are endangering everybody else.
Here are the provoking headlines of those wired.com articles: More...
by Bill Sardi
Recently by Bill Sardi: Where Are the Vaccine Pied Pipers Leading Us?
On Friday I stood before an audience in Phoenix, Arizona and attempted to shock them with something similar to a repeat of Orson Welles' War Of The Worlds radio broadcast, a 1938 Halloween night radio announcement that said, in a series of news bulletins, Martians had landed on the earth. The public cowered in fear then, even when Welles announced it was just a radio drama, not reality.
The contrived crisis I created was the President of the United States had just announced a national emergency because of a massive number of deaths attributed to a fast-spreading strain of flu virus that had combined with a mortal form of flu virus. My hand was shaking as I read the announcement. People in the audience thought it was real. The audience began to squirm and wonder, before I finished my melodrama, just how they were going to return home without having to undergo forced vaccination at the airport.
They were relieved when I told them this crisis was purely fictional. I added the announcement for just such a contrived crisis was probably already programmed into the President's teleprompter. Little did I know how true these words were to become.
To my surprise, on the afternoon of the following day (Saturday), the President of the United States had indeed declared a national emergency due to 1000 reported flu deaths, 100 of them among children. These deaths had occurred over the past eight months. More...
Monday, October 26, 2009
There's a new CNN poll that shows a clear generational split in who supports Obama's health care plan. As the age goes up, support goes down. Our youth seem to be all for Obama's "free" health care.
Dude, like how could you be against free health care, man? And free meh-de… medi-chlorian… meh... .you know, free pot?
Gee, I don't know, maybe the provision in the bill that incentivizes hospitals not to keep treating the sickest among us — who typically are seniors. Yeah, why would old people be against that? Read the article here...
Federal law provides a variety of powers for the President to use in response to crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances threatening the nation. Moreover, they are not limited to military or war situations. Some of these authorities, deriving from the Constitution or statutory law, are continuously available to the President with little
or no qualification. Others—statutory delegations from Congress—exist on a standby basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a national emergency. These delegations or grants of power authorize the President to meet the problems of governing effectively in times of crisis. Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens. Furthermore, Congress may modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority. More...
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Will you please take the time to read this, and if you think it worthwhile, pass it along to your email list, and ask them to read it? Even if they voted, with all good intentions, for Mr. Obama?
I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?
We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has loaned two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the 700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people, who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about)the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.
And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more imporant.)
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change.
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.
This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.
And that is only the beginning.
And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his brown shirts would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and ... change. And the people surely got what they voted for.
(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)
Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.
Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.
Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe and why I believe it.
I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Codex in Depth:
Started in 1962 by UN, Imposed by WTO Sanctions Codex Alimentarius was created in 1962 as a trade Commission by the UN to control the international trade of food. Its initial intentions may have been altruistic but it has been taken over by corporate interests, most notably the pharmaceutical, pesticide, biotechnology and chemical industries.
Codex Alimentarius is backed up by the crippling trade sanctions of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Any non Codex-compliant nation would face huge economic punishment since they would automatically lose in any food-trade dispute with a Codex compliant country. More:
Anyway, for your perusal
This is the basic paperwork to be delivered to the courts and attorney geneneral of every state. We need more jurers. Some of the evidence isn't shown because they are pdf files and photos, but you get the jist. Also, FB doesn't really let you use legal format, so it doesn't look as "legal."
The State of _________________
Grand Jury Presentments
Re: Fraud (eligibility), Treason and Election Fraud
WARNING: These are Grand Jury Criminal Presentments. These documents are
NOT a lawsuit or a Court filing. The Court named in the Jurisdiction above is being
SERVED said Criminal Presentments according to the Constitutional rights as
guaranteed to the Citizens of the United States of America.
Any Court clerk, employee, representative, Judge, Prosecutor or Officer of the Court that
refuses to accept these Presentments can be held accountable for violating
Constitutional law. Such violation may include “Obstruction of Justice” or “Misprision
of Treason or Felony.” Judicial Article III Courts are required to review and respond to
Jurisdiction: Article III Courts cannot abdicate their own Jurisdiction.
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority
The “shall extend to all Cases” is a mandatory statement, as much as it is a
universal one. If the Court refuses to extend its jurisdiction to all Cases, then it is acting
unconstitutionally. The “arising under this Constitution”, clearly explains that it is
the duty of the Court to uphold the Constitution.
Barack Obama, aka: Barack
Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein
Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro; aka:
Barry Obama; aka: Barack Obama,
presumed President of the United
States; Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the
DNC; Democratic National
Convention, et al.
(Court stamp or person’s name and signature)
For the Court to refuse to uphold the Constitution, or the constitutional exercise of authority by
the other 2 branches of government, for any reason whatsoever, is innately
unconstitutional, because it is directly contrary to the duty of the Article III Judiciary.
Standing: When a crime is committed where such action expressly violates the Constitution,
then first, there must be a determination if such action was unconstitutional; if it was, then all
citizens should have standing by virtue of the 9th Amendment, which expressly reserves to “We
the People” any right not specified in the Constitution. And since there is no right granted in the
constitution, for any branch [or person] to violate the constitution, the people retain the right to
see that it is enforced.
The Grand Jury Presentments presented herein have been handed down by virtue of the rights
vested under Amendment 1 and 5:
Amendment I of the United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment V of the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..
Constitutional “standing” regarding these presentments is therefore vested with
Such standing by the People shall then require that the Judicial Court determine if the
criminal activity being charged in said Presentments are indeed in violation of Constitutional
law and if so, the Court must act to prosecute such charges.
PRESENTMENTS Served by Name: __________________
Address (state and zip only): ___________________
Serving Person’s Signature: ___________________
Attachments hereto are made a part hereof:
1) Grand Jury Presentments
2) Evidence as noted by Exhibits
State of ______________________
County of ______________________
On this, the __________ day of _______________, 2009, before me a notary public, the
undersigned, personally appeared
be the person whose name is subscribed to this document, and acknowledged that he/she is the
person that served said Presentments to the Court as stated herein.
In witness hereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
Contact Information – Please contact the following person for responses, motions, or
questions regarding these Presentments:
American Grand Jury
4913 Inverness Run Dr
Jonesboro, AR 72401-8061
Presentments: American Grand Jury
October 7, 2009
On October 7, 2009 the American Grand Jury concluded its final day of
deliberations and handed down presentments with regard to CRIMINAL activity,
complaints and allegations presented before the Super Grand Jury II [hereinafter
known as “Grand Jury”].
Such charges and presentments of criminal activity were handed down against the
person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein
Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry Obama; aka: Barack Obama, presumed
President of the United States [hereinafter known as “Obama”]; Nancy Pelosi,
Chair of the DNC; Democratic National Convention; et al.
Said Grand Jury was duly organized and empowered under the laws of the
Constitution of United States of America as follows:
Scope and Authority of the Grand Jury
The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1 and Amendment 5, known as
portions of the Bill of Rights state as follows:
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the
people as guaranteed under the Constitution, Amendments 1 and 5, Bill of Rights.
The convened Grand Jury was “national” in nature, represented by people of the United States,
said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of
the Grand Jury:
Each Jury member was eligible as follows:
1) A citizen of the United States;
2) A citizen of eighteen (18) years or older;
3) A resident of a State chartered within the United States of America;
4) Was in possession of his/her natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound
judgment and of fair character;
5) Possessed a sufficient knowledge of the English language;
6) Were not serving as a trial juror in any court;
7) Had not been convicted of a malfeasance in office, a felony, or other high crime;
8) Were not serving as an elected public officer.
Each Jury member did SWEAR or AFFIRM as follows:
“That I (jury member) shall diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of
all such matters as may be given me before the jury, or shall come to my
knowledge, touching such service. I shall present no person through prejudice or
ill will, nor leave any un-presented through fear or favor, but in all my
presentments shall endeavor to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth (affirmed) or so help me God (sworn).”
Said affirmation or sworn oath was duly subscribed by appearance of each jury member before a
notary public whereby each jury member affirmed or swore the Oath of Office for service to the
Each original jury member's “Oath of Office and Eligibility” document was sealed and recorded
in a central location for purposes of empowering the Grand Jury.
A jury foreman (moderator) and alternate jury foreman were appointed to conduct the Grand
Said Grand Jury hearing was conducted in secrecy. All evidence was sealed and protected. All
presentments (charges) were voted upon. Said Grand Jury was comprised of 274 regular Grand
Jury members, including 1 Jury Foremen and 1 Alternate Jury Foreman.
Criminal complaints placed before the Grand Jury:
That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States
as provided for in Article II, Section 1.
Said Article II, Section 1 states:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time
of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither
shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Wherefore, Obama is not a “natural born” Citizen for the following reasons:
1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens.
2) Obama was a British Citizen “at birth.”
3) Obama was born in Kenya.
4) Obama's mother did not meet US Immigration laws necessary to pass US
Citizenship to Obama
See Count One “EVIDENCE” Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
The charge of “Treason” against Obama is before the people of the United States of
America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely
damaging against the people.
Said complaint was formally brought by a Military Officer (retired) of the United States
of America. All United States Military Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of
the United States and such complaint is valid, explicit and proper; when an Officer is
aware of such malfeasance of Treason by an offender it is that Officer’s SWORN duty to
come forward and present such accusation and complaint;
The Military Officer who filed the complaint is Lt. Commander Walter
Fitzpatrick, III, retired, United States Navy and a graduate of the United
States Naval Academy;
See Count Two “EVIDENCE” Exhibit 5 attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
The Democratic National Convention in conjunction with Nancy Pelosi, Chair of
the DNC, has committed fraud against the electorate, the States and people of the
United States. Pelosi, in conjunction with Barack Obama and others, conspired to
withhold the truth about Obama’s eligibility when vetting and subsequently
nominating Obama on the DNC ticket.
See Count Three “EVIDENCE” Exhibits 6 and 7 attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
Deliberations of the Grand Jury hearing
Wherefore, the Grand Jury conducted its session over a period of 7 days from
Wednesday, September 30, 2009 through Tuesday, October 6, 2009. The final
voting days were conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday, October 6th through
October 7th, 2009.
The American Grand Jury met in closed session comprising an attendance of 274 jury members,
including 1 regular Jury Foremen (moderator) and 1 Alternate Jury Foreman. The Jury Foreman
who was the moderator did not vote. The final vote included 273 jury members. The final voting
count was tabulated and attested to on Wednesday, October 7, 2009.
Such hearing was conducted online in a private website for the express purpose of conducting
said Grand Jury assembly and hearing. Such hearing was secure and unencumbered by outside
intervention or public intrusion.
Each Jury member had full access to the evidence, written and visible (in the form of scanned
and photographed documents embedded in said private website). Each Jury member was given
7 days (in advance) in private session (using the facilities of the private website) to study the
evidence, present questions and form an opinion as to the validity and truthfulness of said
All counts (as listed above) were voted upon by the 273 jury members.
All communications (email, chat messages, jury foreman messages, surveys, forum reviews,
reports, testimony) were conducted in written English. All said communications were securely
saved in a database server as permanent records.
The final votes were as follows: 273 members voted “YES” to hand down the
Presentments against Obama. The voting was unanimous.
The Grand Jury concluded the hearing after handing down the final vote and affirming said
counts and presentments.
The Presentments and such Remedies as prayed for by the Grand Jury
The Grand Jury hereby prays the Court take said Presentments and formally charge and
prosecute Obama under Count One: fraud against the people of the United States of
America by reason of:
That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United
States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.
Furthermore, the Grand Jury hereby prays the Court will formally charge and prosecute
Obama under Count Two: Treason against the Constitution and People of the United
States as follows:
That the charge of “Treason” against Obama is before the people of the
United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes,
and extremely damaging against the people.
Furthermore, the Grand Jury hereby prays the Court will formally charge and prosecute Obama, Pelosi
and the Democratic National Convention under Count Three: election fraud and conspiracy
against the people of the United States of America as follows:
The Democratic National Convention in conjunction with Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the
DNC, has committed fraud against the electorate, the States and people of the
United States. Pelosi, in conjunction with Barack Obama and others, conspired to
withhold the truth about Obama’s eligibility when vetting and subsequently
nominating Obama on the DNC ticket.
Given on this day and year of October 7, 2009 by final vote of the Jury Members of said the
Said presentments are hereby attested to and verified by the Jury Foremen and Alternate
Jury Foreman on this day and year as first above mentioned:
Robert J. Campbell, Jury Foreman and Moderator
Mack Ellis, Alternate Jury Foreman
EXHIBIT 1 - Evidence
Obama “forged” Birth Certificate.
The Obama campaign and election representatives before and after the election posted the
document [seen below] on the Internet for millions to see. This document has no information
on it that could possibly prove Obama is a “natural born” citizen. On top of that, this document
has been proven over and over by experts to be “photo shopped” and a forgery.
EXHIBIT 2 - Evidence
Obama Birth Certificate showing him born in Kenya.
On September 4, 2009, an Affidavit and Copy of a Obama’s Certificate of Birth was filed
with the United States District Court in Southern California, represented by Orly Taitz. This
document clearly shows Obama was born in Kenya.
EXHIBIT 3 - Evidence
A. Obama NOT born of two US citizen parents
B. Obama was a British citizen “at birth.”
§ - Under the British Nationality Act 1948[BNA 1948], Obama's father was a British
citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya.
§ - Obama’s father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961.
§ - Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a
British citizen/subject by descent from his British father.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo:
It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise
that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United
States citizen.. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but
rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa.
Hence, not only was Obama’s father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a
British subject/citizen. Clearly, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural
EXHIBIT 4 - Evidence
Obama’s mother did not meet US Immigration laws necessary to pass US
Citizenship to Obama at time of birth.
§ - Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress, et al.
79. There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien.
80. Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States.
81. Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen
at the time of Obama's birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his
father at the time of his birth.
82. At the time of his birth in 1961, under the applicable statute Obama also could
not gain U.S. citizenship from his U.S. citizen mother due to her being only 18
years old at the time of his birth. ENDNOTE 15.
83. There also exists the possibility that if Obama had U.S. citizenship at birth, he lost that
citizenship when his mother's second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen,
adopted/acknowledged him as his son and along with his mother took him to live in Indonesia
and when he later traveled as a foreign citizen with a foreign passport to Pakistan after the age of
majority  when he was approximately 20.
ENDNOTE 15: A child born in wedlock and abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien
parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA, provided the citizen parent
was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time
of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical
presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952
and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are
required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child).
Attorney Mario Apuzzo:
Obama’s mother, born on November 29, 1942, was 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama
on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old. But she had to be at least 19
years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy the legal requirement
of Section 301(g). Hence, if Obama was born in Kenya, under the Fourteenth
Amendment, he is neither a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil nor one by
naturalization. (There is no existing evidence that Obama was ever naturalized.) Nor would
he qualify to be a U.S. citizen by any act of Congress by being born abroad to a U.S. citizen
If this scenario were proven to be true, it can be reasonably argued that Obama
is an illegal alien.
EXHIBIT 5 - Evidence
Fitzpatrick Treason Complaint filed with US Attorney Russell Dedrick and
Assistant US Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District Tennessee.
EXHIBIT 6 - Evidence - DNC Details
Barack Obama refused throughout the vetting process to produce proof that he
was a “natural born” citizen as required by the Constitution. On Obama’s word
alone, Nancy Pelosi caused documents to be signed and distributed to forty nine of
the fifty States hiding the fact Obama was not eligible for nomination or election.
Many others, including State DNC organizations, allowed the truth about Obama's eligibility to
be hidden from the electorate and the public. The charge of fraud is now clearly a conspiracy of
fraud against the electorate, public and the United States of America.
TWO nomination documents were prepared. The second document [DNC2]
included the “Constitutional” certification within the declaration:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United
States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following
were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the
United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice
President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions
of the United States Constitution..
The first [DNC1] document expressly excluded the “Constitutional” certification
from the declaration:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United
States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were
duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United
Nancy Pelosi, the DNC and local State DNC Chapters filed the “non-Constitutional” certification
document with the Election Commissions in forty-nine of the fifty States.
The two separate Nomination Certifications are complete with date stamps, matching
signatures, even the same Notary of Public authentication.
As a result of the “Constitutional” Nomination Certification not being filed with forty-nine States
the Election Commissions within these States were defrauded as the truth about Obama’s
vetting and eligibility was purposely withheld, therefore misrepresented.
The 50th State, Hawaii, is a mystery as to why the DNC submitted the Constitutional
Certification. It is assumed the State of Hawaii demanded the wording be included in the
Certification. However, by filing this Constitutional “version” with Hawaii and not the other 49
States it ADDS to the fraud, conspiracy and guilt. Why would the DNC even prepare (2)
documents? The issue still remains, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and the vetting of him
by the DNC was misrepresented and fraudulent.
Not only is this fraud, it is a conspiracy because multiple parties were involved.
EXHIBIT 7 - Evidence
Adding to the guilt and the intentional fraud conspired by the DNC, it
should be recognized that the Republican National Convention (RNC) filed
nomination documents with ALL 50 States declaring their national
candidates as “ meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office..
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Post & Email
October 16, 2009
What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services. What most people don’t know that is in 2004, the AP was a “birther” news organization.
How so? Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available at
The AP reporter stated the following:
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful,
Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senateseat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations. More...
By Ben Conery
KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want. More...
Some big news to pass along to you. CNN and Fox News have confirmed they will be covering the launch of the "Tea Party Express II: Countdown to Judgment Day" -- and other national networks are arranging to cover the tour as well.
What this means is this: we simply MUST have big crowds on hand - especially for our first few rallies We've already paid for radio and TV advertising time to help promote our rallies - and this was made possible because of your financial support.
If we don't have large crowds for our early rallies we'll likely lose our media coverage - they'll say that this isn't a big enough news stories. Here's where we've run into the problem: as we've tried to buy radio advertising time on Los Angeles radio stations we are facing severe budget problems. Given that Los Angeles is the 2nd largest media market in the country, the cost of the ads on those stations are exorbitant.
But our Los Angeles rally is crucial. We simply MUST have lots of people in attendance given all the media outlets that will be covering the rally. Our radio ads in Los Angeles begin running on Thursday. So we have the next 2 days to raise the money. Right now we're trying to raise $35,000 in the next two days. Will you PLEASE help?
You can support us by making the most generous contribution you can afford - HERE.
Or, you can mail in a contribution to our headquarters:Our Country Deserves Better Committee ATTN: Tea Party Project 770 L Street #1020 Sacramento, CA 95814
The maximum allowed contribution is $5,000 per individual. Most of you will be able to afford less than that. Whatever you contribute, whether it's $25 or $50 or $100, or a more generous contribution of $250, $500 or $1,000 - we are most grateful for your support.
More information on the Tea Party Express can be seen in our new TV video:
If you liked what we did with the first Tea Party Express you're going to love what we have in store for our second effort. It's going to be even bigger and better yet!
So please lend us your support. You can contribute online right now - HERE.
Thank you again for your support. We've got a lot of work to do to take our country back, and we couldn't do it without you!