• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Filing charges of Treason against Obama?

Standard request from the Reality Based community. All other birther threads on this forum before this last week have all been moved to the conspiracy theory thread where they belong.

Except this isn't about his eligibility directly, it's about a news story that relates to that. :D
 
Except this isn't about his eligibility directly, it's about a news story that relates to that. :D

You're new here epic but to my knowledge even news stories about birthers have been moved down to the conspiracy thread. As for your article. The birther met with a panel of 3 in a small town. It was not the full grand jury as the article said and was procedural. He seemed pretty pissed when he left as well.
 
You're new here epic but to my knowledge even news stories about birthers have been moved down to the conspiracy thread. As for your article. The birther met with a panel of 3 in a small town. It was not the full grand jury as the article said and was procedural. He seemed pretty pissed when he left as well.

Eh, well it started as a news thread, if it degenerates into a conspiracy thread, I have no qualms with moving it. :D
 
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
And again you have nothing of substance to add.
Just one of the typical behaviors of a person who can not make a valid rebuttal.



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

This thread needs to be moved to the conspiracy theory section.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?

1.) It probably will be.
2.) Contrary to your belief, it isn't Conspiracy. Even if moved.
3.) It is a valid issue that you can not show to be invalid.





More false statements I see.
All other birther threads on this forum before this last week have all been moved to the conspiracy theory thread where they belong.
False.


Nothing assbackward about it.
It was completely backasswards.


Coolguy keeps posting the same **** to new people because somehow he thinks he can fool the new guys.
Not only false but a mischaracterization as well.
I look at what is being said, not at the poster, or how new they are or aren't. :doh
In this topic I asked a person a question and they replied with an answer that was not only non-responsive to the question, but totally inaccurate.



... he's been beaten down with his whacked out conspiracy theories in the conspiracy theory section over and over again.
Wrong, inaccurate, false, a lie, take your pick.
They all fit because I have never been beaten down and this legitimate issue isn't a whacked out conspiracy theory, nor does it belong to me.
 
Actually, the case you sited does define NBC…. Let’s look at the word “nomenclature”.
...
So we can see this passage of that opinion that states: "with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar," means that we can look to an author of the constitution, and to the 1st Congress for the meaning of NBC... so let's do that.
...
Seems pretty clear what the Nomenclature of the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of our constitution means..... and Judge Waite knew it.
As I have previously said to you;
"... it does not mean it is proven that this is exactly what our Founding Fathers or Framers meant.
The proof would come in how our Court would decide their actual intent."
A Court could very well find that they didn't define it and make a finding that the Founders meant something different then what we have argued.



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

As for your article. The birther met with a panel of 3 in a small town. It was not the full grand jury as the article said and was procedural. He seemed pretty pissed when he left as well.
Do you have a link?


Yeah "coolguy" had this explained to him already down in the conspiracy theory threads he just keeps posting the same crap to different people as if he doesn't know this **** was explained.
No this was not explained away by anybody, especially you.
So either you are mistaken or deliberately telling an untruth. Which is it?

Better yet.
Why don't you provide a link/s to the exact post/s where the following was explained away to back up your statement or admit you are wrong.
Heck, refute it yourself.
But already knowing that you can't, I would suggest that you just admit your statement was wrong.


88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875

...
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
...
Minor v. Happersett
Did you get that, or should I repeat it?
It hasn't been fully defined.

And if the Fourteenth Amendment applied that is where the Court would have turned, instead of saying the Constitution doesn't define it and turning elsewhere.
This is a legitimate issue.
Now refute it.

Oh, I forgot. You can't. :rofl



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

As I've said before, ... Once an individual becomes the President-elect, Congress and only Congress can question his (or her) qualifications to be President or remove the individual from office per the Constitution (short of the individual resigning, of course ...).
Yes you did say this before and you were also told then that you were incorrect.
But I see you didn't pay attention, which makes you just as incorrect now.

Congress delegated that authority to the District Court of the District of Columbia, to hear the writ of 'Quo warranto', which is specifically designed to remove a usurper from office.

This doesn't preclude other Courts from hearing cases on other issues if they have jurisdiction and the plaintiff has standing.
Any findings or discovery that was detrimental to Obama from these cases would then be forwarded to the AG who should then, if warranted, file 'Quo warranto' proceedings.

As for this Treason Charge making any headway where it is at. I doubt it, even if they charged him.
What would be funny is if any indictments made were sealed. It would have the effect of bringing the issue more coverage.
 
And again you have nothing of substance to add.
Just one of the typical behaviors of a person who can not make a valid rebuttal.



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

1.) It probably will be.
2.) Contrary to your belief, it isn't Conspiracy. Even if moved.
3.) It is a valid issue that you can not show to be invalid.





More false statements I see.
False.



It was completely backasswards.



Not only false but a mischaracterization as well.
I look at what is being said, not at the poster, or how new they are or aren't. :doh
In this topic I asked a person a question and they replied with an answer that was not only non-responsive to the question, but totally inaccurate.



Wrong, inaccurate, false, a lie, take your pick.
They all fit because I have never been beaten down and this legitimate issue isn't a whacked out conspiracy theory, nor does it belong to me.
I find it funny that the only time i ever see you posting has to do with conspiracy theories and birther threads. You keep posting the same wrong information over and over again as if you think you can fool the new people. Ill give you an example. A post recently claiming natural born means born of two citizens et the passage posted stated it only applies to chldren born overseas. Yes this is a conspiracy theory you think somehow his parents plotted to secretly install him as president all those years ago. Somehow the state of hawaii which is run by a republican, multiple states all the courts these cases are submitted to, the supreme court are in collusion in this coverup. One of your birther heroes, Orly Taitz, is in trouble now because she was trying to get people to lie in her affidavits and not tell the truth. Now "coolguy" do you have any proof that he wasnt born here or isnt natural born because so far the evidence points to him being.
 
As I have previously said to you;
"... it does not mean it is proven that this is exactly what our Founding Fathers or Framers meant.
The proof would come in how our Court would decide their actual intent."
A Court could very well find that they didn't define it and make a finding that the Founders meant something different then what we have argued.



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Do you have a link?


No this was not explained away by anybody, especially you.
So either you are mistaken or deliberately telling an untruth. Which is it?

Better yet.
Why don't you provide a link/s to the exact post/s where the following was explained away to back up your statement or admit you are wrong.
Heck, refute it yourself.
But already knowing that you can't, I would suggest that you just admit your statement was wrong.


Did you get that, or should I repeat it?
It hasn't been fully defined.

And if the Fourteenth Amendment applied that is where the Court would have turned, instead of saying the Constitution doesn't define it and turning elsewhere.
This is a legitimate issue.
Now refute it.

Oh, I forgot. You can't. :rofl



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Yes you did say this before and you were also told then that you were incorrect.
But I see you didn't pay attention, which makes you just as incorrect now.

Congress delegated that authority to the District Court of the District of Columbia, to hear the writ of 'Quo warranto', which is specifically designed to remove a usurper from office.

This doesn't preclude other Courts from hearing cases on other issues if they have jurisdiction and the plaintiff has standing.
Any findings or discovery that was detrimental to Obama from these cases would then be forwarded to the AG who should then, if warranted, file 'Quo warranto' proceedings.

As for this Treason Charge making any headway where it is at. I doubt it, even if they charged him.
What would be funny is if any indictments made were sealed. It would have the effect of bringing the issue more coverage.
do you have any court cases establishing precedence to back up your claims coolguy?
 
I honestly think that this case is pretty much a joke.

Its likely that Barack Obama is a legal citizen of this country, IMO he just isn't a Natural Born Citizen. If the courts or Congress made the determination that Barack wasn't an NBC, I don't think he would really be guilty of anything. It's unlikely that Congress would try to do such a thing as defining a term that has been in our legal system 200+ years undefined. It's pretty unlikely that the courts would rule on what the definition of what a NBC is for pretty much the same reason.

Now if somebody was to prove that Barack Obama wasn't a legal citizen - an alien in the highest seat of power in the land, then I would prefer a military tribunal for him.:mrgreen:

If he is not a natural born citizen, he is not eligible to be President, nor is a naturalized citizen eligible to be President.
 
His mother was an american, and he was born in AMERICA. The law required you to have a parent that is an american, and be born here in AMERICA. TO be a Natural born CITZEN


I find anyone crazy, or just a bigot to think he wasn't born here.

You need to check the first section of the 14th Amendment.
 
Oh my Dear God in Heaven not this again. Do you believe the earth is flat and we never went to the moon?! For God's sake! This is so ludicrous the supreme court refused to waste their time on it. Get over it. McCain and Caribou Barbee lost. Obama's our president now!

Why is it ridiculous to ask and demand clarification and proof.

It was demanded of McCain - and Congress had to approve that he could run for office. It was questioned of Lowell Weicker, George Romney . . and others.

"On July 27, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 593, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, including the text, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961." The vote passed 378-0."

Seeing as how they've addressed it in Congress one can understand that It's a legitimate question to ask.

But what people don't realize is that it's been given an answer - and the answer stands as the final ruling on the issue.


Having established how the Congress has ruled on that issue . . . we can address the specifics of the guy's charges.
Oh wait - there aren't any:

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. Known military criminal actors—command racketeers—are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America’s constitutional government.

He was voted in, he didn't break in - and Congress has since examined and determined him to be a natural born citzen.
So these charges now stand on nothing.

Free from constitutional restraint, and following your criminal example, military commanders deployed U.S. Army active duty combat troops into the small civilian community of Samson, Alabama last week in a demonstration of their newly received despotic, domestic police power.

And I don't get this - how is this related to his citizenship? This simply states the location of an incident without giving much more than that.

What happened in Samson was a tragedy - and the units that deployed to Samson weren't under Obama's direct orders (no matter how you trump up the chain of command) - they were under orders of their commander and leaders at Fort Rucker. This case has, also, already been settled and deemed that they crossed the line determined in the Posse Comitatus Act.
It's been adressed properly.

They didn't draw fire or anything - they aided and simply did what *police* should be doing - they didn't commit attrocious acts of heinous crime. They didn't kill people, McLendon did.


Overall - I think it's childish to continue to conspiracy tossing when it comes to this. There are countless legitimate reason to not support him, not approve of him, and be against him - focus on those.
By continually coming back to this now exhausted arguement people are taking away form the things that DO matter - such as Obama's inability to make solid decisions regarding our troop activity overseas and in Latin America with Uribe, along with questioning his beliefs about healthcare reform and what he *really* wants to do.
Failed and expensive stimulous plans - redirecting borrowed money to offset the deficit - and so on.

The list of things he's done since in office - directly DONE (not done via chain of command - demanding he pay for someone else's oversight) - is very lengthy. Focus on those things.

And keep the list - you'll need it in 3 years.
 
Last edited:
He is not nuts yet. He is merely jumping the gun. He should first deal with the war crimes commited by Bush and Cheney.

What war crimes? Also, that statement is not pertinent to this subject.
 
Standard request any time Barry's eligibility comes up... right out of the lib's play book.

Yes, so it will be hidden from view. What do the libs have to hide?
 
More birther nonsense. The proof has been provided, the retards just don't like it.
 
More birther nonsense. The proof has been provided, the retards just don't like it.

That's what I've been saying all along.... you retards just won't look at the evidence, but keep spouting your ignorant, uninformed bile. Thanx for admitting it. :thumbs:
 
I'm only coming into this thread to grab a seat, start eating my popcorn, and watch RightatNYU enter the thread and completely destroy you guys again, just like he did last time this particular silly argument was made. :mrgreen:
 
I'm only coming into this thread to grab a seat, start eating my popcorn, and watch RightatNYU enter the thread and completely destroy you guys again, just like he did last time this particular silly argument was made. :mrgreen:

The problem was that while it was fun once, watching them recycle the exact same arguments, and deny the same facts, time and again is just old. You cannot argue with conspiracy theory people, since they can accept no worldview other than their own, so any facts that contradict their worldview they either ignore or dismiss.
 
That's what I've been saying all along.... you retards just won't look at the evidence, but keep spouting your ignorant, uninformed bile. Thanx for admitting it. :thumbs:

And now, not only are birthers having a problem dealing with reality, they have a problem with reading comprehension too. Thanks for proving just how idiotic the birthers are. Oh and duelers is just a name some birthers made up because they are too damned embarrassed to admit they are birthers.
 
That's what I've been saying all along.... you retards just won't look at the evidence, but keep spouting your ignorant, uninformed bile. Thanx for admitting it. :thumbs:

How are those court cases coming Crunch? Win one yet?
 
I'm only coming into this thread to grab a seat, start eating my popcorn, and watch RightatNYU enter the thread and completely destroy you guys again, just like he did last time this particular silly argument was made. :mrgreen:

Souldn't you be busy defending ACORN or the Global Warming hoax?
 
I was typing fast, and yes I did, when I heard about. I think anyone is crazy that says Obama isn't born in Honolulu, and the people that want to bring bush up on war crimes. I think some of the people who actually did the crimes needs to be brought in for justice thought.


You just put yourself in the same boat as the birfers and the trufers. I'm sure you'll be in good company.
 
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the Supreme Court is more aware of the issue than you are. They saw no case in challenging Obama's qualifications.

The SCOTUS upheld slavery once upon a time, too. They don't suddenly become omnisient when they get appointed to the SC.
 
Back
Top Bottom