It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:34 PM

Originally posted by someoldguy
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

From Wikipedia:
"In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation."

If Obama is not an American by birth, then he has not committed the crime of treason, because the USA is not his sovereign/nation. How many of us have seen him standing with his hands clasped together in front of him when the National Anthem is playing. Isn't he suppose to hold his right hand over his heart? This act alone makes me wonder.

I am not exactly clear what your point is. The quote from Wikipedia endeavors to define treason in general and that same article goes on to offer the very specific definition of treason offered by The Constitution for the United States which is not beholden to Wikipedia's definition nor any other sovereign state or nation outside of the U.S.

In terms of the current President being guilty of treason or not, I have all ready stated that if his crime is merely obtaining the office of President through fraudulent means then I remain skeptical that his crime is treasonous and is a merely a matter of fraud. If it be treason, then let such a matter be investigated in a court of law and if the current Presidents actions fall with in the very specific definition of what treason is, then let him be convicted of treason. However, I fail to see how his actual place of birth would actually constitute treason. No doubt, the Constitution has made clear that only those born with in the U.S. are eligible to be President, but if Obama was not born within the U.S. and has perpetuated fraud, while this is a crime, it is not treason.

In regards to your assertion that he does not place his hand over his heart when the Star Spangled Banner is played, there is no clause by Constitution that requires him to do so and while it may appear to be suspicious behavior, it is not in itself evidence of anything other than a failure to act in a traditional way. I am no fan of this President, nor did I vote for him, however he is the POTUS and as such deserves to be treated with the modicum of respect. If he has perpetuated a fraud on the people by running for office when not being qualified to do so, he is still presumed to be innocent until found guilty. It is good that the people are turning to legal means in which to discover this mans innocent or guilt, and even if the charge of treason be a dubious one, if he is unquestionably qualified by birth to serve as President then let him prove it.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:39 PM
I love how most of you are complete and total cowards.

Here is a man that is not only standing up for what he believes but is also willing to risk his life fighting for it. Not on some battle field, but under the executioners axe!

Treason is punishable by death 100% of the time. It is the only law specifically listed in the constitution. Mutiny holds the same punishment.

Commander Fitzpatrick is trying to prove that Obama is not only a Natural born citizen but guilty of high treason (which I guess are related). He is not doing this on some message board some where on the internet. He is not taking some lame petition. He is not bitching about the state of things and just sitting around. He is risking his life, by punishment of hanging/lethal injection/the electric chair, to fight for that which he believes.


His life, his family, his everything is on the line!

Call him a fanatic, call him any name you want, but in the end he has balls 10000x bigger and more solid than yours could ever be.

Canadian News Article:

Commander Fitzpatrick is a retired career Naval Officer who has served his country with great honor and distinction and continues to today. An Eagle Scout of 40 years, the son of Captain Fitzpatrick - Naval Medical Officer, a graduate of St. Thomas Aquinas and Villanova Preparatory School in California…—“Walter enlisted in the Navy in 1969 directly after graduating Villanova. After boot camp at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Walter attended the Naval Academy Preparatory School in Bainbridge, MD. After one year he entered the U.S. Naval Academy. He graduated with the Class of 1975 with top military honors.‚”—From Commander Fitzpatrick’s Official Bio.

Stand Commander Fitzpatrick’s r√©sum√© next to that of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, or most any other American for that matter, and tell me who you trust to tell the truth? We all know the motives of politicians, money and power. But what does Commander Fitzpatrick stand to gain from his recent actions?


A pretty impressive service record.

BTW, if he is guilty of perjury they would have to prove it.

This is where it will get interesting.

It's not a matter of if they beleive him or not. They have to have evidence that his testimony is false which will lead to a criminal investigation and some subpoenas. Hearsay is not admissible. Either way, the court will be forced to investigate Barack Hussein Jihad for the discovery of evidence, even if it is an unreleated perjury case.

Edit: BTW, it is our constitutional right to question the validity of our government. It is our right to disagree with TPTB. You really want to loose that right?

[edit on 30-11-2009 by DaMod]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:42 PM
People get so worked up about he is a citizen or is he not? The truthers...the birthers...etc.

The point is not whether or not the man is a citizen of the US -- the point is OUR RIGHT, as AMERICAN CITIZENS OURSELVES, to question our leaders. Period.

This is more than whether or not Obama is guilty of treason. This fight is simple: whether or not the American people at large have the right to information, all information, regarding the person in charge of representing the American People in our own country and anywhere else in the world.

The man works for us. Period.

Anybody not suporting this effort, in my opinion, is foolishly giving away our right to question our leaders, our incumbents, our government. Think beyond Obama for a minute and realize that as soon as we back down from this fight, we are also saying that any politician, or future POTUS, is allowed to seal whatever information they see fit -- restrict whatever is told to the American people -- and create a cherry-picked persona. Wouldn't that be nice? To be able to edit your past in order to present the "perfect picture" of what a President "should be?"

Nobody forced the man to run for President. If one wants to remain anonymous, and hide their past, their extended family, their birthplace, etc -- then don't run for President.

Where are all of the people that voted for Obama simply because they thought TRANSPARENCY in the White House would be a good thing? How can you not find the sealing of information -- ANY INFORMATION -- to be contradictive to this platform?

I'm not hoping to discover a Kenyan birth certificate in all of this -- the ramifications of that would be devastating to our country -- however, I refuse to give away my right to question our leaders. The ones that represent me, you, and everyone else. The ones that receive their paycheck simply by withdrawing from mine and yours.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:45 PM

Originally posted by someoldguy
reply to post by Libertygal

Is he a naturalized citizen? Or is this also assumed?

That would depend on the stance you took in following the birther issue. If you believe he was born on Hawaii, which is the main argument, then he is by definition, a naturalized citizen.

However, even as was spoken in his own words (you can esily google this for evidence), if born in Hawaii his father passed his nationalization as a British subject, so he would not be naturally born. Most people consider him as born in Hawaii, but not naturally born. This is where the argument comes from that he is usurping and treasonous.

If instead, you took the stance he was altogether born not in the US, but in Kenya, etc., then he would not be naturalized unless he had at some point in the past applied for citizenship and taken the test, so therefor not naturally born, NOR a naturalized citizen. most of the lawsuits filed re: this issue do stand on him being born in Hawaii.

The smaller group of birthers believe that he was born inKenya, etc.

Indeed the presentment of the *original* birth certificate would settle any questions regarding the issue, and the main question is why he spending so much to hide it, and to be forced to present it.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by DaMod

thanks for the very informative post on these matters and what he stands to lose

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by 4nsicphd

I only posted the reasoning behind US citizens being allowed to form a grand jusry, when someone stated they were not.

I seriously do not consider US Supreme Court Justice Scalia to being someone spewing garbage.

Nice try though!

Edit to add:

Passing a true bill against someone by it's very definition is admitting there is enough evidence to prooffer guilt. If there was not, then the system would be more broken than it is.

When you begin with a presumption of innocence, and if enough evidence is presented to cause reasonable doubt, you get a true bill.

It is not up to the Grand Jury to determine guilt or innocence past the indictment, but to determine if the evidence is enough to cause to question probable cause.

It is the final jury trial, after finding a prosecutor, that would determine guilt or innocence.
[edit on 30-11-2009 by Libertygal]
Someone said citizens were not allowed to form a grand jury, and guess what? They were right. A bunch of citizens can get together in a a room and say, "Hry, let's form a grand jury." And guess what you have - a bunch of citizens in a room deluding themselves.
Oh, it's problematic using a word, like proffer, without knowing what it means. The real meaning proves my point.
And Scalia often spews garbage. However, I earned a DFC and two purple hearts defending his, and your, right to spew it, and my right to call it out for what it is. By The Way, what is the current status of the "indictment" issued by the toddlers playacting as the AmericangrandJury? Their crowning achievment? They mailed it. Hooray! We've got him now! The revolution is in the mail. Thomas Paine would be so proud.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
Thanks LibertyGal these 3 or 4 people could be very well the same person under different accounts which i would not put pass. we 3 or 4 (not limited) people who think this whole thing is funny are one and same person with multiple accounts lol. Well. that's a new one. Don't worry I wont post here anymore now since you are unable to comprehend a different view. I will post here again when:
a) This turns out to be a hoax
b) The Case "if" real by this "private group" called Grand Jury, get's thrown out of the court

To laugh on your face and the stupidity of this matter.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by December_Rain]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by lpowell0627

You have exactly hit thenail on the head.

The point that most people seem to be missing is, this could happen again and again, and the more rights you waive, or do not care about based on your defense of one person, is a waiver of the rights for all.

Once you waive these rights, whether or not you agree with them, your ability to exercise them in the future becomes more and more bleak.

I think I need to make my sig like this:

Party lines do not matter when it comes to these subjects, these are the rights of all, and if you choose to only exercise these rights when it suits you, you may not find them there when you need them.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by December_Rain

the post was in no way related to you at all i was speaking of someone else

but thats fine do as you wish no harm intended to you

[edit on 30-11-2009 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:50 PM
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.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:52 PM
10 pages of reading, excellent posts on both sides.

Have to give the man kudos, balls of gold coated tungsten

And all of you backing Obama with blinders on. Ask yourself this, why are you not still pushing and forming your own grand juries to get Bush prosecuted?

Do not fall for the Right/Repub-Left/Dem Paradigm.

We are US CITIZENS, we are not serfs, we are not slaves, we are not FRACKING SUBJECTS, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

No matter what STATUTES have passed that have destroyed the US CONSTITUTION, WE still have the POWER!

Quit your division and ask WHY you do not support your fellow Americans in asking TRANSPARENCY.

Or are you afraid of what you may find under your parties covers?

I and many here have NEVER voted for EITHER devil party. We have seen the light.

The LIGHT IS GOOD, walk toward the light, ask questions, DEMAND transparency and honor from YOUR representatives to the world.


posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by rusethorcain

You are the evil anarchist guilty of treason against our country.

really just trying to derail my freedom of speech and insist i am a anti-christ for posting this article is all, you make a good christian let me tell you.

May god forgive you

[edit on 30-11-2009 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:57 PM
reply to post by 4nsicphd

A party with the burden of proof must proffer sufficient evidence to carry that burden.

In the context of a trial, to proffer (sometimes profer) means to offer evidence in support of an argument, or elements of an affirmative defense or offense

A Grand Jury is a hearing of evidence. I fail to see how I misused the word.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:59 PM
As an aside, here is one of the many reasons I don't like Scalia, and why I consider him anti Constitutionalist ( even though he masquerades as a strict Constitutionalist).

From Wikipedia's bio:

Scalia has said on several occasions that he does not believe the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy.

I grant you this is somewhat of a simplification of Scalia's views, but privacy means free from the undue interference of government. Scalia holds somewhat contradictory views on this, and definatly right wing views. Thats his right of course, but I don't hold him in the same regard as other present ( and past ) Justices.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by someoldguy

If he were not a natural born citizen, this would make him a usurper.

Being a naturalized citizen, and usurping the seat of the presidency would make him a usurper committing treasonous acts against this country.

So that is a valid argument.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Libertygal]

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.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by DaMod

Well now we have traffic cameras that can send us a ticket in the mail and thanks to the Patriot Act every word on the internet can be used against us and the library books we take out can construe reasonable cause for a search warrant. I think we suffered the greatest loss of liberty during the Bush years. Rights were being taken away as fast as our soldiers were fighting to preserve them. That was criminal.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:07 PM
reply to post by OldDragger

I dont think I would use Wikipedia as a reliable source on Scalia. You have the right to your opinion, however, and you are welcome to it.

Here is a fact about Scalia that I do like:

At 72, Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as "orginalism," which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago.

Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution - like a right to abortion - by interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" that adapts to changing values.

Asked what's wrong with the living Constitution, Scalia tells Stahl, "What's wrong with it is, it's wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution."

"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," he says.

I think I will take him at his own words, and if, based on your replies one were to assume you voted for Obama, would explain your bias against Scalia.

Regardless of what you feel about Scalia as a Justice, the fact remains citizens have the right to form a grand jury.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by DaMod

Well now we have traffic cameras that can send us a ticket in the mail and thanks to the Patriot Act every word on the internet can be used against us and the library books we take out can construe reasonable cause for a search warrant. I think we suffered the greatest loss of liberty during the Bush years. Rights were being taken away as fast as our soldiers were fighting to preserve them. That was criminal.

I cannot help but smile when I read this post. I suppose you missed this story?

Obama Quietly Backs Patriot Act Provisions
William Fisher

NEW YORK, 23 Nov (IPS) - With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.

And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.

When a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially strengthened civil liberties protections.

But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans – and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois – the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.

Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism investigations.

Not only is he backing it, he is adding to it. Seems a bit hypocritical doesn't it, pointing fingers at someone when the person you are defending is turning out to be worse?

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:12 PM
More brither nonsense I see.The fact this got to a grand jury is laughable when the judge does eventually throw this out Commander Fitzpatrick is gonna be ruined and all the brithers here will be crying about how corrupt the justice system is.Does it really matter if Obama is a legit citizen or not? the President of the US is a figurehead we have not had a real say in who is President for years if we ever did.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:14 PM
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

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in