Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury

reply to post by lpowell0627


Of course we take the fact Obama is not a US born citizen who is by law able to hold office very seriously!

Reason:
It would open the door for say, pot smoking, steroid injecting Austrian dual citizen Arnold Schwarzenegger to become President!

A man that has said from his own mouth that 90% of people need to be told what to do!

A man who has said he has dreamed of ruling people and a Nation!

If Obama can do it, then it opens the door for others which is the reason it is "law"

To ignore it, is to ignore the law. We have had enough political problems and trouble with our so-called elected leaders in the last 8 years.

If he was born in Kenya, let him get elected there! If he was born on American soil, then simply show the "real" birth certificate like all of us actually have (not a certificate of live birth which is something entirely different) and this issue case closed.

Why is that so difficult?!

The fact that he "Obama" has fought to keep everything quiet says quite the opposite of him being American born and able to hold the office of President.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by arizonascott]

Originally posted by djusdjus
renewal of provisions is not the same as renewal of all the patriot act. which had a sunset clause that dumped most of the provisions.

the ones that are kept are in keeping with good sense really if you look at it.

I mean, if you wanna act like a jerk to a cop, then you'll get exactly what your deserve.

If you're involved in terrorism and think the bill of rights protects those activities, think again.

more GOP swill as far as I can see. lol there sure is a lot of substanceless GOP swill these days. Hmmmmn, I wonder why? lol

Ummm, hand up screaming ummmm pick me pick me!

Who the hell is getting a constitutional jury of their peers in NY.

C'mon, if you are going to argue, think before you speak, hate to think you were GW behind your moniker.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE

 

I didn't attack you. Just pointed out how unpatriotic you are. Believing in God is no crime. Hater? I am very much a lover. This my friend is the point. I even want people I don't know to have health care, a good education and a fair wage. You can even take a little of what is mine (and it isn't much believe me) but you can take some of it to provide health care to a stranger.
Even you. You don't have a clue though, do you? Poor thing.

Ohh yay! This is going to be FUN! By questioning the validity of the US government not only is he upholding one of his most important constitutional rights but is also displaying some serious patriotism.

Yes Patriotism. He, like many of us, are working to protect what America stands for. We are making sure elected officials uphold their office instead of using it for personal, political, or financial gain. We are questioning whether our President Elect, Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of High Treason.

I am a Patriot because I love my country. I am also a Patriot because I question those that are supposed to serve us. This is part of the constitution for a reason! It is to protect the average American Joe like you and me. It is to protect us from Tyrrany, which we are getting closer and closer to every day.

Sure Barack Obama may not be a natural born US citizen, but that would have merely disqualified him from furthering his steps up the ladder. This alone does not constitute treason.

The Treason comes from blatantly lying to the American people about his nationality. This could be fixed by simply proving he did not lie. He has never done this. He has never even made an attempt.

On a further note, this man, Commander Fitz is not a Traitor. He has a more than excellent and impressive service record. He dedicated his entire life for serving the country you love. He is a father and a son with a lineage of military service. The man is a freaking PATRIOT! Yet many here will continue to call him a charlatan or fanatic.

What Charlatan or Fanatic would sacrifice his natural life, his family, his carrier, his entire world for a Hoax? This fact alone should make everyone here want to listen to what he has to say!

[edit on 30-11-2009 by DaMod]

reply to post by Beaux

Usurper is not a legal term that I have heard before and if every word of all of this was true, it would not be treason either. It would be fraud.

Betraying and exposing an undercover CIA is treasonous. Lying to the country in order to commit American troops to war is treasonous. Lying about your birthplace to gain employment is fraud.

Lying and usurping the seat of the presidency and then sending troops to Afghanistan as an illegal president could be considered treason, as could any numbers of laws that have been passed since January.

Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: \ˈtrē-zən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray — more at traitor
Date: 13th century
1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

www.merriam-webster.com...

USURPER. One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country. Toul. Droit. Civ, n. 32.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 1713.

www.pixi.com...

Main Entry: usurp
Pronunciation: \yu̇-ˈsərp also -ˈzərp\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French usorper, from Latin usurpare to take possession of without legal claim, from usu (abl. of usus use) + rapere to seize — more at rapid
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1 a : to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right b : to take or make use of without right
2 : to take the place of by or as if by force : supplant
intransitive verb
: to seize or exercise authority or possession wrongfully

www.merriam-webster.com...

Libertygal and the rest of the patriots(my definition so no one can call out a supposed faux paus-someone that believes it is their RIGHT AND DUTY to question the actions and honor of those THAT SERVE IN THEIR NAME) on this thread.

Stars and Flags all around.

It is patriotic and honorable to question this about our president.

It is patriotic and honorable to question the treason and lies that Bush has committed in our name.

It is patriotic and honorable to question all of our Representatives.

It is Unpatriotic and Dishonorable to question your fellow Citizen/Governors on their absolute right to ask these questions.

I will defend to the DEATH your rights to ask questions, will you NOT give me the same rights? If not, you are the very THING that is causing all of the countries problems.

Because we the CITIZENS of the US are the RIGHTFUL rulers of our country.

WHERE DID YOU LEARN YOUR DUTY AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN?

reply to post by endisnighe


Uh, who is denying your rights?
Dramatic enough?
It's not a problem to question authority, it would be nice if they were intelligent questions though.

reply to post by endisnighe


stars all around to you too my friend great post !

reply to post by DaMod


On a further note, this man, Commander Fitz is not a Traitor. He has a more than excellent and impressive service record. He dedicated his entire life for serving the country you love. He is a father and a son with a lineage of military service. The man is a freaking PATRIOT! Yet many here will continue to call him a charlatan or fanatic.

Good for him.
But that doesn't mean he's not a nut. That doesn't lend any credence to his
"theories".
Many sincere people have been proven to be sincerly wrong!

reply to post by OldDragger


Asking whether our president is a natural born US citizen is a very intelligent and valid question. Asking our own leader if he is breaking one of the oldest and most important laws in the book is very important.

So lets have a history lesson. Do you know why the founding fathers wrote that rule into the constitution?

Three Words.

Conflict of Interest.

or

Location of Loyalty?

or perhaps 4 words.

love of what land?

I'm sure you understand this. I'm sure you can see why this is important?

reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE

Probably me.
But anyway, I'm here in beautiful downtown (no cows anyway) Madisonville, TN, pop. 3938, elevation 1031, total 4969., parked across the street from the Monroe County Courthouse at 105 College Street. Not an insurrectionist in sight, although I understand Walter 'the New Orly' Fitzpatrick may be staying somewhere nearby, although he may be at home in Cookeville, 2 hours away. Ihe waitress at Bert's said Madisonville has no intention of becoming the 21st century version of Dayton, TN. According to her, Monroe County has no racial problems. "They know their place, she unself-consciously reported. I'm sure they do.
The Courthouse is a typical Southern Greek Revival brick ediface, from the late 1800s.Donna's Old Town Cafe is the Courthouse favorite. I guess I'll hit it for breakfast since the Judge and Prosecutor and Clerk will no doubt be there. Court Clerks, especially in rural jurisdictions, are wonderful sources of information. Oh-Oh, I see a black SUV down the street. Must be the Capital Letter guys (CLG). You know - TPTB, CIA, NWO, MSM NSA, NCIS CID, PTA. Nope, just a middle aged woman with her 2kids. Or maybe a MILFISTO/MISTO team. You know, MILFs in service to Obama and Midgets in service to Obama. Who knows? I heard that Obama's father's second cousin's barber once saw a midget at the circus. Nothing to do now but await the empaneling of the Grand Jury in and for Monroe County, 10th Judicial District of Tennessee.

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by DaMod

 

On a further note, this man, Commander Fitz is not a Traitor. He has a more than excellent and impressive service record. He dedicated his entire life for serving the country you love. He is a father and a son with a lineage of military service. The man is a freaking PATRIOT! Yet many here will continue to call him a charlatan or fanatic.

Good for him.
But that doesn't mean he's not a nut. That doesn't lend any credence to his
"theories".
Many sincere people have been proven to be sincerly wrong!

It doesn't mean he is a nut, and it doesn't mean he is wrong.

You are pretty quick to judge someone you don't even know. You are quick to disregard his service record as well.

Not just anyone can graduate top of their class from the US Naval Academy for one. I for one think we should at least listen to what he has to say. He has earned it after all.

Plus he isn't the only one that wants to see things come to light, he is just the only one with balls enough to do it!

[edit on 30-11-2009 by DaMod]

reply to post by OldDragger


Drama can be inspirational.

I can only see division and divisiveness when it comes to the Party Paradigm.

We HAVE to get to the bottom of this issue and hundreds of others.

On this thread and numerous others all I see is the government tactics of divide and conquer. I could give examples, but just go back several pages.

Our government is on the cusp of total TYRANNY and we must stop it.

And again, I can be dramatic when necessary and very articulate.

What I hate about this presidency, more than the previous one, is Obama's supposed forthright attitude and articulation of what we as a Nation, were screaming for.

Transparency, the end of corruption, getting us out of Empire, etc etc etc.

Totally destroyed that did he not?

That is why I joined here and in many other sites, not to mention my involvement in the real world political scene not just the net.

edit to fix some gramma

[edit on 11/30/2009 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by andrewh7

 

I think I got it before you did Andrew. I would've thought that a member of the legal body such as yourself would defend this issue with something more worthy than the race card that you valiantly flashed in your earlier posts.

Then you go on to ressurect Glenn Beck, who incidentally was never charged, nor a suit brought against him. RIGHT? HAd that been the case, it still wouldn't pertain to this thread and this issue.

I think the point is that posting something like this only brings to light how uneducated people are about the system they are criticizing. The "Grand Jury" in question isn't part of a legal system at all, but a group of individuals that don't like that Obama is president. The post was put forth with what looks to be the intention of representing a news story. Going into the link pretty much debunks that idea however.

Anyone taking less than a cursory glance would be fooled into thinking it was a legitimate story from a reputable source.

It'd be like posting a link regarding Glenn Beck's involvement in a murder....

Originally posted by DaMod

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE

 

S

The Treason comes from blatantly lying to the American people about his nationality. This could be fixed by simply proving he did not lie. He has never done this. He has never even made an attempt.

On a further note, this man, Commander Fitz is not a Traitor. He has a more than excellent and impressive service record. He dedicated his entire life for serving the country you love. He is a father and a son with a lineage of military service. The man is a freaking PATRIOT! Yet many here will continue to call him a charlatan or fanatic.

What Charlatan or Fanatic would sacrifice his natural life, his family, his carrier, his entire world for a Hoax? This fact alone should make everyone here want to listen to what he has to say!

[edit on 30-11-2009 by DaMod]

What colossal unabashed tripe. Like I said before, read the freakin' constitution. Treason can only be waging war against the US by a citizen. If he lied, that's lying. It ain't treason. Look it up. I guess reading is too much trouble
And you are right, ex- Commander Fitz is not a traitor. He is a convicted criminal, who gave up a career to misappropriate his men's money.
Yeah, hitch your wagon to a disgraced ex-con who can't find the right courthouse for a federal crime.

thepostnemail.wordpress.com...

The Internet “Rumor” which turned out to be the truth
On Nov.17.2008 @ 3:11 pm, at Attorney Leo Donofrio’s Blogtext blog, entitled “Natural Born Citizen”, it was first mentioned that:

Also, Somebody from Chicago just contacted her and stated that during the Senatorial campaign there was a debate between Barack Obama and Dr. Keyes. This debate was videotaped. During the debate Dr. Keyes has stated :”You are not even a Natural born citizen” to which Barack Obama replied: “That’s OK, I am not running for president, I am only running for Senate.”

This same commenter posted again at Chicagoans Against Obama blog at 7:40 PM the same day.

On Nov. 25, 2008, at 6:42 PM, it is mentioned again at Stormfront:

In search of — Debate during the Senatorial Campaign between Dr. Keyes and Obama in which was stated : “You are not even a Natural born citizen” to which Obama replied:” That’s o’k, I am not running for President, I am only running for Senate” – If anyone knows where this tape is located, please e-mail [email protected] THANKS.

A thread on this was opened at Free Republic on Dec. 2, 6:12 PM:

// I was looking for a video that I ran across recently from the 2004 Keyes/Obama Senate race debates where Keyes stated :”You are not even a Natural born citizen” to which Barack Obama replied: “That’s OK, I am not running for president, I am only running for Senate.”

reply to post by DaMod


What do you mean I can't judge him?
I can judge his "case' according to the article the OP posted! And it's ridiculous! Crazy!
You guys keep saying Obama hasn't proven his eligibility!
What utter nonsense!
According to the United States Congress he HAS!
He has fullfilled the legal requirements.
But that just isn't good enough! Oh no!
Earth to birthers! Earth to birthers! Reality calling!

reply to post by Libertygal


heres the 2004 videos








[edit on 30-11-2009 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]

reply to post by Libertygal


Oh my God!
this changes everything!
Wait!
It proves nothing!
Great. A blog that states several people "remember" Obama saying this.
Yet no tape, no transcript.
HMMM
No comment from Keyes? that's odd.
Stormfront is certainly a great source! I sure trust the neo-nazi white power crowd to be impartial!
Pullleeeeze!

[edit on 30-11-2009 by OldDragger]

[edit on 30-11-2009 by OldDragger]

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Old Dagger is right.

A grand jury is not able to indict the President for treason. That power lies only with Congress, who's the supreme authority of the land.

No Mak, you're getting criminal charges confused with congressional impeachments. A President has the same rights and privileges we do, via the Bill of Rights.

Technically Obama would have to be subpoenaed to a Grand Jury.. the 5th amendment requires as such:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The President is not exempt from the 5th in this case, therefore he would be brought before a Grand Jury as it's his Constitutional right. At that point, a Grand Jury would vote to indict, or not.

In fact, given the history of our Constitution, and previous separation of State/Federal Constitutions and Incorporation of the Constitution via the 14th, the 5th was originally in there for the very reason of trying/convicting/charging people in Federal Government as a State Actor.

If indicted, he would then face arraignment on the charges and thus discovery comes into play. If no true bill is granted, then no charges will be brought against him.

Congress on the other hand, can conduct impeachment hearings at any time. They can also decide what to do with the impeachment if "convicted".

I figured people would have understood this with Clinton, even though he was impeached, he completed his term. In addition, he was also the first sitting president subpoenaed into a Grand Jury.

Just like Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was tried by jury fell under these same Constitutional rights.

Our Judicial system can indict anyone they want, without Congressional approval (much to their dismay I'm sure). Indeed, your system would be like giving a Fox the keys to the Hen house. It would be exceedingly hard to indite another congressmen, if the rest of congress were the only ones able to bring charges against other State Actors.

As for the Treason Charges, the Constitution is specifically limited to them -- and Congresses role.

Even so, claiming unconstitutional acts as treasonous do not conform to the specifically defined acts in our Constitution regarding it, ie:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

A really large stretch would require the Birth Cert (if fake) to be an act of War by his originating country, in this case Kenya (doubtful), or being aligned with our enemies, along with aid and comfort (double doubtful).

Also, to get the conviction, you are never going to get two eye witnesses say that Obama lied about his BC in order to become the President just to participate in those above acts. Nor is Obama going to waive his 5th, get on the stand, and declare himself a traitor.

Only if convicted of Treason, does Congress have any say in the whole thing.

It's a nothing burger, and quite frankly it will be dismissed outright the first day of arraignment if it even gets past the Grand Jury -- as it should be.

Fraud/conspiracy to commit fraud would be more appropriate in this matter. It would have happened within the courts jurisdiction (namely, the elections), and there is probable cause with the motive to become President of one of the richest nations on Earth.

Simply fraud and subsequent discovery if applicable, would require him by Constitutional Law to no longer be the President via the II.1.5 and II.1.6 if he's found not to be a natural born citizen.

No need for Treason charges. No need for a conviction at that point.

However, this opens the door up for conspiracy charges against Congress, whom have certified him to be President -- but that's another thread and a reason you'll never see them question his eligibility.

States evidence would point to his ineligibility, and Congress would have no choice but to act for his removal. Even if they did not move on it, the SCOTUS would force the issue.

Look, for all of you Obama "he's not a natural-born citizen" people: get over it...

Sigh, just like when Bush and Congress trampled on Constitutional Law with the Patriot Act? I heard the same thing then too -- "get over it".

Now it's Obama's turn. Look, if he is not a Citizen of this Nation is breaking our Law and is not qualified to be president.

It's that simple. No Ulterior motive.

Or shall we continue to play the game that it's only bad when the other side does it?

When are you going to stand up and call for the Constitution to be followed.. or do you approve of unlimited power as long as it's your side that has it?

With that attitude eventually you'll wake up to find you have NO power. Congress is not the ultimate say of the land, we are.

He's our President. I didn't like Bush as President, but I said the same thing about the stupid impeachment movements for him. You don't need to like Obama, but many of you have to stop this nonsense that the man isn't a natural-born citizen.

And with that Presidency, comes a Constitutional Oath. If a man who is not born here, swears to uphold the very Constitution that disqualifies him, isn't that an Oxymoron? How can you think he takes that Oath seriously?

That Oath is there for a reason, and it's for your benefit -- not his.

Show the proof, and be done with it. Don't hide it behind a lot of money and secrecy. All that does is breed contempt from the general populous.

If you can't realize that, then I fully expect you never to flex your constitutional rights -- or defend them. If you waive one, you waive them all. You do not have the luxury to pick and choose.

reply to post by grahag

I think the point is that posting something like this only brings to light how uneducated people are about the system they are criticizing. The "Grand Jury" in question isn't part of a legal system at all, but a group of individuals that don't like that Obama is president. The post was put forth with what looks to be the intention of representing a news story. Going into the link pretty much debunks that idea however.

Anyone taking less than a cursory glance would be fooled into thinking it was a legitimate story from a reputable source.

It'd be like posting a link regarding Glenn Beck's involvement in a murder....

Yes, I got that; he was using the fake Glenn Beck rape/murder as an analogy to President Obama's presumption of innocence in his birthright.

Thing is, it was pretty far off base, as there is actual evidence to support the possibility the President Obama is not a natural-born citizen, whereas in Glenn Beck's case, it's been well established that Mr. Eiland-Hall simply made up the whole thing, and later confessed to same.

I thought it possible also that the ATS member I was responding to was attempting to cubbyhole me into the "rightwing" arena by defending Glenn Beck. Beck is an entertainer. He has been insightful at times, annoying at others. His "case" is in no way comparable to a Constitutional issue and the President of the United States.

Still, thanks for your point-of-view; I would have missed some of the peripheral nuances of the Grand Jury discussion otherwise.