• 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?

EpicDude86

EpicDude86

Banned
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
4,384
Reaction score
822
Location
Epic Mountain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I know it's Canada Free Press, but still, the guy will be delivering his evidence on Dec. 1. Enjoy. Now, before I get the usual liberal ****storm, please remember I"m just posting this article to hear everyone's response. I'm not going to take a side right away because I want to get some good debates going and hear what you all have to say.

Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury


On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee.
Click to expand...
 
Man this guy is nuts. I wonder why, I haven't heard this on the news.
 
Last edited:
RyrineaHaruno said:
Man this guy is nuts, if this is true why have I not heard of it in the news? :rofl
Click to expand...

well they have articles about it from earlier in the year but most of this has gone under the radar because (And I'm assuming here):
1) They (That is the people filing these charges) claim to have been blocked, threatened, and ridiculed, etc. by not only the legal system but other people as well (I can understand this, appearently the guy filing charges had to also file Obstruction of Justice charges against a Grand Jury member but I'm still trying to find the documentation on this.

and/or

2) It's not gaining much momentum with anyone that would normally jump on this type bandwagon because he hasn't really presented anything yet (and the birthers kind of gave the "wackjob" title to anyone who contests Obama's legitimacy.


We shall see.
 
EpicDude86 said:
well they have articles about it from earlier in the year but most of this has gone under the radar because (And I'm assuming here):
1) They (That is the people filing these charges) claim to have been blocked, threatened, and ridiculed, etc. by not only the legal system but other people as well (I can understand this, appearently the guy filing charges had to also file Obstruction of Justice charges against a Grand Jury member but I'm still trying to find the documentation on this.

and/or

2) It's not gaining much momentum with anyone that would normally jump on this type bandwagon because he hasn't really presented anything yet (and the birthers kind of gave the "wackjob" title to anyone who contests Obama's legitimacy.


We shall see.
Click to expand...
I think he is another bither myself, thought. Hell, I do think this guy is, a bither, and a wackjob. :rofl
 
EpicDude86 said:
Well you're a self proclaimed liberal so I could have pretty much guessed you'd say that. :D
Click to expand...

:rofl Yes I am, but it does always seems like the bither's are wackjobs that needs their tinfoil hats removed. ;)
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
Man this guy is nuts. I wonder why, I haven't heard this on the news.
Click to expand...

Did you say that when a Vermont jury indicted Bush of war crimes?

BTW, you mispelled birther three times, in two posts. I'm not a grammer nazi, but damn dude!
 
Congress needs to clearly define what a "natural born citizen" is, or the courts need to make a legal ruling ass to the definition of a "natural born citizen."

Neither have happened, citizens of this country are being told that they have no legal standing to question the Constitutional qualifications of a person holding the office of the President.

The fact that so much of the President's history has been sealed should be enough to cause any rational person to question the motives of this supposedly "transparent" leader.
 
The silenced majority said:
The fact that so much of the President's history has been sealed should be enough to cause any rational person to question the motives of this supposedly "transparent" leader.
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree more. For someone who ran on a platform of transparency, there sure is a lot of his administration going on behind closed doors and without oversight. i,e, health care bills, cap and trade legislation, etc. crafted by Democrats only.

So if he was eligible to be President, why has he spent so much time and money trying to bury every aspect of his past?


The treason charge may not be appropriate. After all, are we even sure he is an American? Wouldn't he have to be American for his actions against America to be Treason? /Devil's Advocate mode off
 
1 Easy Target said:
The treason charge may not be appropriate. After all, are we even sure he is an American? Wouldn't he have to be American for his actions against America to be Treason? /Devil's Advocate mode off
Click to expand...

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:
 
apdst said:
Did you say that when a Vermont jury indicted Bush of war crimes?

BTW, you mispelled birther three times, in two posts. I'm not a grammer nazi, but damn dude!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
There will never be any treason indictment.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
I think anyone is crazy that says Obama isn't born in Honolulu, ...
Click to expand...
What about those for whom the issue is, whether or not he qualifies as a 'natural-born Citizen' because his father wasn't a citizen.
That issue alone has nothing to do with where he was born.
 
Last edited:
Coolguy said:
What about those for who the issue is, whether or not he qualifies as a 'natural-born Citizen' because his father wasn't.
That issue alone has nothing to do with where he was born.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
I find anyone crazy, or just a bigot to think he wasn't born here.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask about that specific, so there was no reason to repeat yourself.

RyrineaHaruno said:
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
Click to expand...
That isn't what the law says.

But since you make the claim that it does.
Please... provide it.
 
Last edited:
RyrineaHaruno said:
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.
Click to expand...


Calling a bunch of people bigots? wow. Way to not break from the Liberal Stereotype of using blanket terms to define people who don't agree with you. :lol:
 
This thread needs to be moved to the conspiracy theory section.
 
The silenced majority said:
Congress needs to clearly define what a "natural born citizen" is, or the courts need to make a legal ruling ass to the definition of a "natural born citizen."

Neither have happened, citizens of this country are being told that they have no legal standing to question the Constitutional qualifications of a person holding the office of the President.

The fact that so much of the President's history has been sealed should be enough to cause any rational person to question the motives of this supposedly "transparent" leader.
Click to expand...

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!


:beatdeadhorse:beatdeadhorse:beatdeadhorse
 
EnigmaO01 said:
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!
Click to expand...
Nothing of substance to add, only hyperbole? Figures.

Nothing 'The silenced majority' said was wrong or incorrect.
Natural born Citizen hasn't been fully defined.

Take notice and learn.

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
Click to expand...

Did you get that, or should I repeat it?
It hasn't been fully defined.
And if the Fourteenth Amendment applied that is where they would have turned, instead of saying the Constitution doesn't define it and turning elsewhere.
This is a legitimate issue.
You also need to learn why the Courts are dismissing the claims.
It has to do with 'standing' to bring the case in the first place, not with it being ludicrous.

Secondly, in regards to the Sct. They can only be the final arbiter in regards to these issues.
Get back to me when you comprehend what that means.
 
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.
 
Coolguy said:
Nothing of substance to add, only hyperbole? Figures.

Nothing 'The silenced majority' said was wrong or incorrect.
Natural born Citizen hasn't been fully defined.

Take notice and learn.

​

Did you get that, or should I repeat it?
It hasn't been fully defined.
And if the Fourteenth Amendment applied that is where they would have turned, instead of saying the Constitution doesn't define it and turning elsewhere.
This is a legitimate issue.
You also need to learn why the Courts are dismissing the claims.
It has to do with 'standing' to bring the case in the first place, not with it being ludicrous.

Secondly, in regards to the Sct. They can only be the final arbiter in regards to these issues.
Get back to me when you comprehend what that means.
Click to expand...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
 
EnigmaO01 said:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom