The Best News You'll Hear All Day

"Now you have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment." Full story below.

---

BORN IN THE USA?
Federal criminal complaint contends Obama ineligible
Ex-officer alleges prez used 'contrivance, concealment, dissembling and deceit'

---

Posted: March 25, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

An ex-military officer has raised the stakes in the ongoing dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, filing a criminal complaint against the "imposter" with the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Retired U.S. Navy officer Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who has run a campaign for two decades to uncover and try to correct what he believes are criminal activities within the military, accused the president of "treason."

In his complaint addressed to Obama via U.S Attorney

Russell Dedrick and Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District, Tennessee, Fitzpatrick wrote: "I have observed and extensively recorded invidious attacks by military-political aristocrats against the Constitution for twenty years.

"Now you have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment."

He cited the deployment of "U.S. Army active duty combat troops into the small civilian community of Samson, Ala.," and said, "We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works.

"I identify you as a foreign born domestic enemy," he wrote.

The 1975 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis told WND that a short time after his complaint was filed he was visited by two U.S. Secret Service agents, but they left after telling him they perceived no threat to the president in the document.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join some 350,000 others and sign up now!

Officials with the Knoxville office of the Secret Service told WND the only person who could release information to the media was on vacation and they would not comment on the issue.

Likewise, officials with the U.S. attorney's office declined to respond to a WND request for a comment.

Fitzpatrick told WND the U.S. Justice Department needs to look into the issue.

WND reported this week that officials at the Justice Department, along with those at the Supreme Court, confirmed that documentation in a case challenging Obama's eligibility had arrived and was scheduled for an evaluation.

That case is being handled by California attorney Orly Taitz, who is working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation to handle several cases raising questions over Obama's qualification to be president under the Constitution's demand that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen.

Taitz was informed by Karen Thornton of the Department of Justice that all of the case documents and filings have arrived and have been forwarded to the Office of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, including three dossiers.

Fitzpatrick said he has devoted his career fulltime to investigating issues in military justice and defending wrongly accused soldiers, sailors and Marines. His own career was torpedoed by a court-martial more than 20 years ago over his authorization of the use of a ship's fund to send an officer to the funeral for his brother, who had been killed by terrorists.

Fitzpatrick's situation has been described not only on his own website but forum pages on other websites that deal with military issues.

He alleges his case was fabricated and even his signature was forged by officials connected to his case. He points to the fact that he ultimately retired and was awarded a military pension as support for his allegations.

But he says the new complaint against Obama should define the issue of the president's eligibility.

"They either have to come and get me or get Mr. Obama's eligibility proved. He has an officer in his military saying he is guilty of trespass on the Constitution," Fitzpatrick told WND.

"They can recall me against my will to active duty," he said. "I would refuse. It's an illegal order by a man who is not by commander in chief."

WND has reported on dozens of civil case legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, 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."

Some of the legal challenges question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Hawaiian officials have confirmed they have a birth certificate on file for Obama, but it cannot be released without his permission, and they have not revealed the information it contains.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."

Officials for the Obama campaign repeatedly have refused to comment on the questions, relenting only once to call the concerns "garbage."

*******

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies in the heart of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear.

The traitor is the plague......" Marcus Tullius Cicero, speech to the Roman Senate.

*******

Advertise Here

Home

'PERMIT' to feed the hungry...What's wrong with this picture?

The following story from

St. Francis' Permit In Limbo

Homeless service criticized for serving more meals than it is allowed by law.

By Megan Rolland

Published: Thursday, March 26, 2009 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 11:27 p.m.

The permits governing one of the city's largest homeless service providers come up for renewal tonight before the City Plan Board, and a large crowd of St. Francis House supporters and critics are expected to attend the public meeting.

St. Francis House provides more overnight shelter for the homeless than any other agency in Gainesville, and most people acknowledge that's important in a community with more than 1,600 homeless individuals.

Yet the impact of the destitute on downtown Gainesville is undeniable - and St. Francis is located just south of downtown.

Lynch Park, a tree-filled park across the street from St. Francis House, is often filled with people who appear vagrant.

And the park has become a hot spot for criminal activity such as drugs and prostitution, police say.

This conflict is what members of Gainesville's Plan Board will weigh tonight at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall.

Every five years, St. Francis House must renew special-use permits to house 35 people per night and serve 130 meals every day, and tonight both of those permits are on the line.

"This is about services being provided to people in need," said Kent Vann, executive director of St. Francis House.

Ken McGurn, whose name is synonymous with downtown redevelopment, said he and the downtown business association are only opposing the permit for "food distribution."

McGurn said he is opposing that permit because St. Francis House has habitually exceeded the number of permitted meals.

"We are not against the homeless," said McGurn, who has a track record of donating time and money to help the needy in Gainesville.

Vann admits that they frequently serve more than the allotted amount of meals, but not by much. Vann said they averaged serving 174 meals per day in 2008, and in 2007 they averaged 140 meals.

"It would be major if we couldn't serve lunch, because there's no alternative to this at this point," Vann said. "If we said no more than 130 people per day, then the 131st person, whether they're a child, an elderly citizen, cannot eat. If there was an alternative they could be taken to another location to eat, but without that, it would cause hunger, it would probably criminalize the situation."

McGurn said there are alternatives.

"It's very frustrating, because I have to obey the law, so why are they the exception and allowed to do it for years and years and years?" McGurn asked. "If there were no other place to serve food, then you might have an argument, but you used to be able to get four meals a day free. If that's the case, why is it required for St. Francis House to provide lunch?"

Vann said the situation in Lynch Park is difficult, but that it is city property and out of his control.

Gail Monahan, executive director of the Alachua County Housing Coalition, emphasized that it's important to look at this issue with compassion.

"They're human beings and they are broken. It's a long hard road," Monahan said. "We've done a lot with the homeless, but they are hard to keep housed, and they are victims."

However, Monahan said it's important to set standards and regulations for the homeless.

"All of us who deal with the homeless need to set high expectations, and maybe some of us aren't doing that," she said.

Both city and county officials and downtown business owners are looking to the proposed One Stop Homeless Service Center - which will be located outside central Gainesville - as an eventual solution to the concentration of the destitute in the downtown area.

City Manager Russ Blackburn said the City Commission will consider, for the third time, location options next month for the One Stop center. He said eventually the hope is that meals would be provided there.

However, until that time, tonight a decision likely will be made.

City staff has recommended both permits be renewed, citing that there have been no recorded incidents or violations of the permits at St. Francis House.

Home

Given the amount the human suffering Communists have caused...Is Obama a Communist?

Some notable people have declared Obama to be a communist. Would it be fair to ask, "What next, Obama? What's next on your communist agenda?" ...and another, "How is it that your lead up to the position you now occupy has so many similarities to other oppressive leaders?"

The following recieved via e-mail:

----- Original Message -----

From:

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:03 PM
Subject: Fwd: Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism? By Dennis Prager FrontPage


FrontPage Magazine

Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?

By Dennis Prager
FrontPageMagazine.com Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Why is it that when people want to describe particularly evil individuals or regimes, they use the terms "Nazi" or "Fascist" but almost never "Communist?"

- 70 million killed in China, 20-30 million in the former Soviet Union, and almost one-third of all Cambodians; the decimation of Tibetan and Chinese culture; totalitarian enslavement of North Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Russians; a generation deprived of human rights in Cuba; and much more -- why is "Communist" so much less a term of revulsion than "Nazi?"

There are Mao Restaurants in major cities in the Western world. Can one imagine Hitler Restaurants? Che Guevara T-shirts are ubiquitous, yet there are no Heinrich Himmler T-shirts.

This question is of vital significance. First, without moral clarity, humanity has little chance of avoiding a dark future. Second, the reasons for this moral imbalance tell us a great deal about ourselves today.

Here, then, are seven reasons.

1. Communists murdered their own people; the Nazis murdered others. Under Mao about 70 million people died - nearly all in peacetime! - virtually all of them Chinese. Likewise, the approximately 30 million people that Stalin had killed were nearly all Russians, and those who were not Russian, Ukrainians for example, were members of other Soviet nationalities. The Nazis, on the other hand, killed very few fellow Germans. Their victims were Jews, Slavs, and members of other "non-Aryan" and "inferior" groups. "World opinion" - that vapid amoral concept - deems the murder of members of one's group far less noteworthy than the murder of outsiders. That is one reason why blacks killing millions of fellow blacks in the Congo right now elicits no attention from "world opinion." But if an Israeli soldier is charged with having killed a Gaza woman and two children, it makes the front page of world newspapers.
2. Communism is based on lovely sounding theories; Nazism is based on heinous sounding theories. Intellectuals, among whom are the people who write history, are seduced by words -- so much so that deeds are deemed considerably less significant. Communism's words are far more intellectually and morally appealing than the moronic and vile racism of Nazism. The monstrous evils of communists have not been focused on nearly as much as the monstrous deeds of the Nazis. The former have been regularly dismissed as perversions of a beautiful doctrine (though Christians who committed evil in the name of Christianity are never regarded by these same people as having perverted a beautiful doctrine), whereas Nazi atrocities have been perceived (correctly) as the logical and inevitable results of Nazi ideology. This seduction by words while ignoring deeds has been a major factor in the ongoing appeal of the left to intellectuals. How else explain the appeal of a Che Guevara or Fidel Castro to so many left-wing intellectuals, other than that they care more about beautiful words than about vile deeds?
3. Germans have thoroughly exposed the evils of Nazism, have taken responsibility for them, and attempted to atone for them. Russians have not done anything similar regarding Lenin's or Stalin's horrors. Indeed, an ex-KGB man runs Russia, Lenin is still widely revered, and, in the words of University of London Russian historian Donald Rayfield, "people still deny by assertion or implication, Stalin's holocaust." Nor has China in any way exposed the greatest mass murderer and enslaver of them all, Mao Zedong. Mao remains revered in China. Until Russia and China acknowledge the evil their states have done under communism, communism's evils will remain less acknowledged by the world than the evils of the German state under Hitler.
4. Communism won, Nazism lost. And the winners write history.
5. Nothing matches the Holocaust. The rounding up of virtually every Jewish man, woman, child, and baby on the European continent and sending them to die is unprecedented and unparalleled. The communists killed far more people than the Nazis did but never matched the Holocaust in the systemization of murder. The uniqueness of the Holocaust and the enormous attention paid to it since then has helped ensure that Nazism has a worse name than communism.
6. There is, simply put, widespread ignorance of communist atrocities compared to those of the Nazis. Whereas, both right and left loathe Nazism and teach its evil history, the left dominates the teaching profession, and therefore almost no one teaches communist atrocities. As much as intellectuals on the left may argue that they loathe Stalin or the North Korean regime, few on the left loathe communism. As the French put it, "pas d'enemis a la gauche," which in English means "no enemies on the left." This is certainly true of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cuban communism. Check your local university's courses and see how many classes are given on communist totalitarianism or mass murder compared to the number of classes about Nazism's immoral record.
7. Finally, in the view of the left, the last "good war" America fought was World War II, the war against German and Japanese fascism. The left does not regard America's wars against communist regimes as good wars. The war against Vietnamese communism is regarded as immoral and the war against Korean (and Chinese) communism is simply ignored.
   

Until the left and all the institutions influenced by the left acknowledge how evil communism has been, we will continue to live in a morally confused world. Conversely, the day the left does come to grips with communism's legacy of human destruction, it will be a very positive sign that the world's moral compass has begun to correct itself.

Home

Time Out For A Good Laugh....Herrrrrre's Johnnie!

It's Your Money...aah, aah, that should say, "Paper"

From: the privateer.com

A History Of U.S. Paper Money

(The notes depicted here are for illustrative purposes ONLY)

If you want to know why Gold is anathema to bankers and financial authorities, take a a good close look at these Notes. The history of the move away from Gold in the 20th century is printed right on them.

"Government is the only agency that can take a valuable commodity like paper, slap some ink on it, and make it totally worthless" Ludwig von Mises. For the ultimate illustration of the truth of this statement, we give you the German Reichsmark of the early 1920s

REAL Paper Money

1913: $50 Gold Certificate
The last of the true Gold Certificates - the Federal Reserve was instituted in December 1913. This is a completely honest and upright money. It says so right on the certificate:

What you are looking at here is a money substitute. Any holder of this certificate held title to 2.41896 troy oz of Gold (at $US20.67 per troy oz.) which could be redeemed at any bank or from the U.S. Treasury itself at any time.

Enter The Federal Reserve

1914: $1 Federal Reserve Bank Note
At the time this was issued, a "note" was well understood to be a promise of payment. Accordingly, this is prominently labelled as a "Federal Reserve Bank Note".

And what is this Note redeemable in? Here's what it says: "Secured By United States Certificates Of Indebtedness Or One-Year Gold Notes, Deposited With The Treasurer Of The United States Of America". The Note was directly redeemable in Treasury debt, but it was not directly redeemable in Gold.

It's Money Because We Say It Is

1928: $100 Gold Certificate
The last of the U.S. Gold Certificates. This certificate was discontinued in 1934 - the same year as the U.S. ceased to issue Gold coinage and made it illegal for Americans to own Gold.

While the statement that the certificate is redeemable in Gold coin still appears, there is this ominous addition imprinted on the "Gold Certificate" stamp.

"This Certificate Is A Legal Tender In The Amount Thereof In Payment Of All Debts And Owen Public And Private". "Owen" is an archaic form of the verb "owe", meaning "to be in debt".

Redeemable In What?

1934: $1000 Federal Reserve Note
As it says right on the note, "The United States Of America Will Pay To The Bearer On Demand One Thousand Dollars". But what is it redeemable in? "Lawful Money".

It says so right on the note: "This Note Is Legal Tender For All Debts Public And Private And Is Redeemable In Lawful Money At The United States Treasury Or At Any Federal Reserve Bank".

In 1934, Gold was no longer "lawful money". In fact, this note was "redeemable" in another note just like it, or 10 "$100s", or 50 "$20s", or 1000 "$1s" - you get the picture.

Remember These?

1963: $1 Federal Reserve Note
The U.S. probably printed more of these than any other note in its history. When they first came out, you could buy quite a lot with one. Now, the U.S. $1 Dollar bill is being phased out.

The recognition of what a "note" is is no more. There is no statement about what this note can be redeemed in anywhere on it. Nor does the Fed bother to point out that the note is "lawful money" - just try and spend anything else! The Note simply states: "This Note Is Legal Tender For All Debts Public And Private". That's it.

The New U.S. Paper Money

1997: $50 Federal Reserve Note
Here is a specimen of the new "counterfeit proof" U.S. paper currency (the "$100s" came out in 1996). As far as what is written on the note, there is not much to distinguish it from the $1 note above. The only discernible difference is the markedly inferior engraving.

But look at the portrait of Ulysses S. Grant, and then scroll up to the first example on this page. Same man, radically different "money". This is counterfeiting of a much more blatant kind than the mere copying of what is already just a piece of paper.

Home