Oath Keepers: We Can Legally File Charges Against Obama

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I don't get how #1 is illegal?

The citation article says there is no evidence Obama did anything illegal. Why would they make this #1?

There is no evidence that in any of his dealings with Rezko that Obama broke any law. The question is one of ethics. And judgment, of course. And truthfulness. Obama’s relationship with Rezko is much more extensive than he has ever admitted. Their 17-year relationship went beyond “one fundraiser” as Obama claims, and a few social dates with the gals.

pjmedia.com...

What is the POINT of focusing on Obama? If he gets impeached (which only congress can do) then another paid off politician will take his place. Obama's policies are JUST like Bush's...and Clinton....there is no change, and hasn't been any.

I think it's time us Americans start focusing on the REAL problem. If you never change the power structure..you're going to get the same types of people in power. Get the money out of politics or we stay enslaved to a corrupt system.

They should arrest Bush, Bush Sr. and Clinton on most of the same charges.

All a bunch of crooks.

If he gets impeached (which only congress can do)

Which is BS since congress is as corrupt if not more than Obama.

There needs to be a way for the PEOPLE to DIRECTLY kick out a president.

Impeachment by corrupt congress is worthless, it'll never be done.

Originally posted by petrus4
Maybe you should file suit against the government, then. I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate that.

Well that proves my point about apathy towards government and the reliance by people to lazy to participate, wanting others to fight the battle for them.

First - In order to challenge a person must have a standing (directly affected by the law).
Secondly - The Supreme Court cases I noted before would be brought up showing that other attempts to do this were not successful.

Originally posted by petrus4
I also might be wrong about the NDAA specifically, but black bagging people (or at least making a serious attempt at it; although in fairness, some GTMO cases in particular have been contested) under some legal excuse has already been done. Given your legal expertise, perhaps you are able to tell me which particular excuse they might favour in this case.

Gitmo is a military facility, not civilian and is operated under the UCMJ. The trial . charges against detainees are also military, in compliance with US and International laws governing enemy combatants. US Citizens are not subject to the UCMJ (some extremely rare occasions exist - embedded media in combat etc).

Originally posted by petrus4
So technically, a phone call could be made to a state Governor, asking for State Guardsmen to be sent to an Oath Keeper's...sorry, domestic terrorist's house?

Uhm no... You and some others seem to be ignoring a key part - There must be evidence of a crime (probable cause for lack of a better phrase for the military). A person cannot just be taken for no reason at all, and the NDAA is clear on that. People who dont bother to read the bill seem to make things up.

So no the Governor can't order a guardsmen to randomly go and arrest people. State guard units can be used in a law enforcement capacity without violating posse com. Any arrests made are subject to civilian courts, not military.

The ability of the guard units to do this predate the NDAA as well as the Patriot Act. Actually Posse Com goes all the way to the mid 1860's and was a result of the military occupation of the South just after the civil war.

The NDAA is limited in scope to certain crimes relating to terrorism.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
There needs to be a way for the PEOPLE to DIRECTLY kick out a president.

There is..

They are called elections.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Vitchilo
There needs to be a way for the PEOPLE to DIRECTLY kick out a president.

There is..

They are called elections.

You're so cute. You think elections matter.

And even if they mattered, one election every 4 years is way too long.

They could add another way to impeach the president. If 2/3 of states legislatures pass an impeachment measure, the president is impeached. Each governor has no say in the matter.

As much as I would like to see many arrest made I know it won't ever happen unless 1000's or more police make the arrest at the same time. In fact it would take an army to walk up and arrest Obama, or any of the rest of them, otherwise they would be shot down real quick, and then the issue of all the courts in the land are operating under the same tyrant authority as Obama.
Talk is cheap, but when an army assembles to take down these evil scumbags; I'll take it serious, but until then nothing else is going to work. Has anything come even close to working, like letters, petitions, voting, etc.?
Charges, and arresting Obama is bull# fantasies by people that do nothing but talk.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Going back to that whole doctrine of sovereign immunity concept we use.

Making it easy to impeach the President would guarantee a non stop impeachment challenge by political ideology and not criminal actions. You think we are gridlocked now....

I will take our style of government any day of the week and twice on Sundays over the Canadian system.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by petrus4
Maybe you should file suit against the government, then. I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate that.

Well that proves my point about apathy towards government and the reliance by people to lazy to participate, wanting others to fight the battle for them.

You do seem to know a lot about the law, that's all. I figured maybe you'd have some chance.

The NDAA is limited in scope to certain crimes relating to terrorism.

Like Occupy, as one example?

The NDAA law also forces them to violate Section 242, Title 18 of US Code. Their duty is to enforce the US Code currently on the books against those who voted for the bill.

Title 18, Section 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being
an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a
dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or
an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
death.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Oath Keepers: We Can Legally File Charges Against Obama

www.westernjournalism.com

The Oath Keepers recently held a convention in Las Vegas, NV, open only to police officers and sheriffs in which former sheriff (and current congressional candidate) Richard Mack discussed how the 168 attendees could reacquaint themselves with their oath to the Constitution and their own protection when they carry out their duty. One of those duties include issuing a warrant for the arrest of Barack Hussein Obama.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.impeachobamacampaign.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
WND TV to live-stream Arpaio eligibility report

reply to post by petrus4


Lol no not occupy... The NDAA is limited to terrorism - points of contact, money sources, planning / getting resources in place to carry out an attack etc.

Dont get me wrong Im not a fan of a law with a somewhat ambiguous nod towards restricting citizens rights. To be honest I saw something very special come from that fiasco that we have not seen in some time -

The people voicing their concerns / speaking out / contacting their representatives and being heard. Even though a version still passed, it was nice to see that response from the people for a change.

As far as the first part I think I took it the wrong way, so my apologies for the smart ass comment.

How about every President since 1916 and the Congress for the last 150yrs. Don't forget the Senate too.
Throw them all out and start over, As Thomas Jefferson said REVOLUTION is the only way for change in a corrupt society. Some bloody others not..... However the not's have never Won.

reply to post by ILikeStars


heck, add Rumsfeld to that list as well. As far as I'm concerned, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Obama all fit under the same category to me: HOMEGROWN TERRORISTS, the whole lot of em. they should all be tried for treason against the U.S. and given the death sentence. but thats just this one humble Americans opinion, and nothing more.....



theres more names I could add to this post, but we get the drift.......

I thought courts, not sheriffs, issue arrest warrants.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Is it even possible to arrest the POTUS?

Has there ever been a POTUS arrest in the history of our nation?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

The number one item on the list of reasons to impeach Obama is that he bought a 10-foot strip of land from his neighbor in a mutual agreement and that ruined his neighbor's land "for all intensive purposes"? What were those "intensive purposes"?

Call me a grammar nazi if you will, but every time I read the phrase "intensive purposes" I cringe. "Intensive purposes" is a malapropism and makes absolutely no sense.

From WikiAnswers

The correct phrase is "to all intents and purposes." This phrase dates back to the 1500s and originated in English law, where it was "to all intents, constructions, and purposes." In modern usage, "for all intents and purposes" is also acceptable. The phrase means "for all practical purposes" and is generally used to compare two nonidentical acts or deeds, i.e.,"We've got a few odd things to finish, but to all intents and purposes the job is done." "They redesigned the old model and created something which was to all intents and purposes a brand new car." A shorter equivalent phrase is "in effect." Read more: wiki.answers.com...

If the ImpeachObamaCampaign.com people cannot even express their concerns without misusing the basic tenants of a language to communicate those concerns, they are illiterate ignoramuses and have no business trying to convince anyone of these supposed "25 Obama Crimes the House Should Investigate".

Has anyone heard anything about whether or not the Bible Cod speaks of Obama?

Originally posted by Longshots
Has anyone heard anything about whether or not the Bible Cod speaks of Obama?

Sorry, it was eaten.
www.easycookingguide.com...

reply to post by Xcathdra

Only a Judge can issue a warrant for an arrest, and going by the law and constitution the warrant must be supported by probable cause.

That "probable cause" includes a verified complaint and no Sheriff need turn to a judge for a warrant once someone has filed a verified complaint. Any person who files a verified complaint is swearing under penalty of perjury that the accusations of criminality are true and correct.

I do not post this to suggest that someone should file a verified complaint against any of these government officials, only to correct your error in asserting that "only a judge" can issue a warrant. That judge finds his authority from the People and any one of the People have the absolute authority to file a verified complaint, and upon this filing, the Sheriff's have no other recourse but to act upon it.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


That's "President" Obama to you.

It seems like this can be an interesting topic but I have to stop myself from delving into the replies.
I'm supposed to be giving up political topics for Lent.
Not to bury my head in the sand, but they make me angry and I need to be less angry.
Hopefully some time away from such topics will give me time to better myself in the anger department.
I've already broken that in the last 2 days by paying close attention to a few other topics.

Hopefully this topic will still be getting comments after Easter.