Is Obama gulity of Treason? Grand Jury to hear testimony 1Dec.

[galtgulch]

An article in the Canada Free Press informs us that charge of no less than treason is going to be heard on December 1st by a Grand Jury in Tennessee which contends that Obama is guilty of treason. here is the link:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17303

And here is the link to an earlier article entitled: "Is Obama Guilty of Treason"

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11853

The charge is brought by retired Navy LCDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III and either the charge is true or LCDR Fitzpatrick is guilty of mutiny and the punishment would be death!

Fascinating read. A Constitutional crisis is at hand.

The charge was filed in March and the Secret Service did go to the retired Naval officer's home but did not arrest him after spending an hour with him.

On 1 Dec the case was due to come before a Tennessee Grand Jury.

www.campaignforliberty.com 223,684

Edited December 2, 2009 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

Gulch; I think we need to take away any sharp pointed objects from you.. You might do harm to yourself or others. What is a Tennessee Grand Jury. Are you suggesting that any US attorney would bring such a silly charge.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[galtgulch]

Gulch; I think we need to take away any sharp pointed objects from you.. You might do harm to yourself or others. What is a Tennessee Grand Jury. Are you suggesting that any US attorney would bring such a silly charge.

Chris,

I didn't realize you had such a low opinion of the Constitution. Either it should be taken seriously as the Supreme Law of the Land or else it would be meaningless.

I gather that in order to tell whether the allegation of treason were true or not the Grand Jury would have to overcome all the couple of million dollar obstacles Obama purchased with his attorneys to see for themselves whether Obama met the criteria set forth in the Constitution to be eligible to seek the presidency in the first place.

This man is willing to risk his life to have this issue resolved.

Your own comments betray your lack of appreciation for the issues involved. If the Founders did mean by "natural born citizen" that someone aspiring to the office of the presidency had to have parents who were both American citizens then it is evident that Obama does not meet that standard because his father was a British subject as he was a Kenyan which was under British rule.

I suggest that you read the articles and refrain from casting aspersions and making ad hominem suggestions about me.

I think the Democrat Party was complicit in keeping these issues out of the public eye. Once they realized Obama's potential their power lust took over. They probably advised Hillary Clinton to keep quiet about this as well. Otherwise she certainly would have made it an issue to eliminate the competition. But the Democratic leadership wanted Obama once it became evident that he could talk himself into the White House because of his huge popular appeal based on his appearance and eloquence.

Why would Obama spend a small fortune on lawyers to keep his credentials a secret?

[Alfonso Jones]

Gulch; I think we need to take away any sharp pointed objects from you.. You might do harm to yourself or others. What is a Tennessee Grand Jury. Are you suggesting that any US attorney would bring such a silly charge.

Chris,

I didn't realize you had such a low opinion of the Constitution. Either it should be taken seriously as the Supreme Law of the Land or else it would be meaningless.

gulch -

I don't think a low opinion of the Constitution is suggested by Chris' remarks. Instead, perhaps a low opinion of the probability of success of tactics such as pursuing this through a grand jury in a small town in Tennessee, perhaps an assessment of the general credibility of the person attempting to bring the case forward.

Advise us: What do you assess as the chances of success of this particular machination?

Bill P

[BaalChatzaf]

If Prince Obama is a traitor then so was every president from FDR on (except for Harry Truman and Gerald Ford).

First we hear that Lord Obama is not a U.S. Citizen. Now we hear he is to be idicted for Treason. I will bet money that such an idictment will never happen and if it does happen nothing will come of it.

This foolishness has no end.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Folks:

I think the trial will be held in Heavenly Hillsborough where they held the Scopes trial in the movie Inherit the Wind!

Adam

"...praying for the end of time..." ahh Meatloaf, baseball, Phil Rizzutto and sex by the dashboard lights...much more grounded in reality than the misguided Massachusetts MD

Does MD stand for manic depressive?

[BaalChatzaf]

Gulch; I think we need to take away any sharp pointed objects from you.. You might do harm to yourself or others. What is a Tennessee Grand Jury. Are you suggesting that any US attorney would bring such a silly charge.

According to the Constitution the indictment and trial must take place in the State wherein the alleged Treason occurred. What did Lord Obama do in Tennessee?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jeffrey smith]

First off, I don't see how getting elected POTUS while not properly qualified can be considered "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", which is what treason is.

Second off, every bit of evidence points to the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, so he is properly qualified, and if you don't like that fact, too bad.

Third off, the retired commander in the reserves has about as little chance of being tried for mutiny, much less being put to death, as I have of discovering the Grand Unified Theory of Physics. Much more likely is being forced out of the reserves (if he's still in it, since he is, after all, retired) for conduct tending to prove that he's an idiot.

Fourth off, there's a severe lack of fact-checking involved in those articles. No individual can indict another person; at most they can bring evidence of criminal conduct before a grand jury, and it's the grand jury that indicts, usually at the instance of the prosecutor.

Fifth off, I seriously doubt that any US prosecutor, who after all answers to the Attorney General, who is after all a member of Obama's cabinet, would let anything go forward with this.

(And this fantastic flight from reality takes place on an Objectivist forum, of all place, where people are supposedly attached to the facts of reality.)

Jeffrey S.

[Selene]

First off, I don't see how getting elected POTUS while not properly qualified can be considered "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", which is what treason is.

Second off, every bit of evidence points to the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, so he is properly qualified, and if you don't like that fact, too bad.

Third off, the retired commander in the reserves has about as little chance of being tried for mutiny, much less being put to death, as I have of discovering the Grand Unified Theory of Physics. Much more likely is being forced out of the reserves (if he's still in it, since he is, after all, retired) for conduct tending to prove that he's an idiot.

Fourth off, there's a severe lack of fact-checking involved in those articles. No individual can indict another person; at most they can bring evidence of criminal conduct before a grand jury, and it's the grand jury that indicts, usually at the instance of the prosecutor.

Fifth off, I seriously doubt that any US prosecutor, who after all answers to the Attorney General, who is after all a member of Obama's cabinet, would let anything go forward with this.

(And this fantastic flight from reality takes place on an Objectivist forum, of all place, where people are supposedly attached to the facts of reality.)

Jeffrey S.

Come on Jeff!

He is from Massachusetts, the State that brought us Camelot, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Robert McNamara, Romney, the Big Dig, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy for cripes sake!

What would they know about reality!

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

First off, I don't see how getting elected POTUS while not properly qualified can be considered "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", which is what treason is.

Second off, every bit of evidence points to the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, so he is properly qualified, and if you don't like that fact, too bad.

Third off, the retired commander in the reserves has about as little chance of being tried for mutiny, much less being put to death, as I have of discovering the Grand Unified Theory of Physics. Much more likely is being forced out of the reserves (if he's still in it, since he is, after all, retired) for conduct tending to prove that he's an idiot.

Fourth off, there's a severe lack of fact-checking involved in those articles. No individual can indict another person; at most they can bring evidence of criminal conduct before a grand jury, and it's the grand jury that indicts, usually at the instance of the prosecutor.

Fifth off, I seriously doubt that any US prosecutor, who after all answers to the Attorney General, who is after all a member of Obama's cabinet, would let anything go forward with this.

(And this fantastic flight from reality takes place on an Objectivist forum, of all place, where people are supposedly attached to the facts of reality.)

Jeffrey S.

Jeffrey S. -

Good post, clear and to the point.

Gulch's enthusiasms sometimes cause him to head off on these tangents. Some of us remember being told that Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee, when the delegates rejected Mccain, presumably because so many copies of Ron Paul videos and other Ron Paul campaign materials had been circulated to them.

Bill P

[jeffrey smith]

Come on Jeff!

He is from Massachusetts, the State that brought us Camelot, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Robert McNamara, Romney, the Big Dig, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy for cripes sake!

What would they know about reality!

Adam

Imagine one of Doc9's icons doing a "smack upside the head routine" on you.

We actually know plenty about reality! For instance, that the Red Sox are always better than the Yankees, even when the Red Sox lose!

Jeffrey S.

who was born in Boston, lived in Massachusetts for the first nine years of his life, and still has a Boston accent despite all those New Yorkers and New Jerseyites who live in Florida.

[Selene]

Come on Jeff!

He is from Massachusetts, the State that brought us Camelot, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Robert McNamara, Romney, the Big Dig, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy for cripes sake!

What would they know about reality!

Adam

Imagine one of Doc9's icons doing a "smack upside the head routine" on you.

We actually know plenty about reality! For instance, that the Red Sox are always better than the Yankees, even when the Red Sox lose!

Jeffrey S.

who was born in Boston, lived in Massachusetts for the first nine years of his life, and still has a Boston accent despite all those New Yorkers and New Jerseyites who live in Florida.

But smart enough to escape. Yes 41 pennants and 27 world series to what two world series...how is that Babe Ruth deal working out for you guys?

[Christopher]

The more these anti-Obama groups focus on trivial matters, the more they lose credibility when presenting matters of weighted importance.

Christopher

[Alfonso Jones]

The more these anti-Obama groups focus on trivial matters, the more they lose credibility when presenting matters of weighted importance.

Christopher

Christopher -

Exactly. Ultimately, "anti-Obama" is the wrong focus for a group. What are they FOR? If their only answer is "we're against Obama," then it's time to ignore them.

Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

The more these anti-Obama groups focus on trivial matters, the more they lose credibility when presenting matters of weighted importance.

Christopher

Christopher -

Exactly. Ultimately, "anti-Obama" is the wrong focus for a group. What are they FOR? If their only answer is "we're against Obama," then it's time to ignore them.

Bill P

Bill P & Christopher; You are both exactly right just being anti-Obama is not enough.

Gulch; Which of the two parts of treason clause are you charging Obama with violating. Is he leading a rebellion or giving aide and comfort to an enemy. He's the President of the United States so he can't be leading a rebellion. Which enemy the US is at war with is he giving aid and comfort to.

[9thdoctor]

Imagine one of Doc9's icons doing a "smack upside the head routine" on you.

In case imagination fails:

Happy to be of service.

[shadesofgrey]

First off, I don't see how getting elected POTUS while not properly qualified can be considered "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", which is what treason is.

Second off, every bit of evidence points to the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, so he is properly qualified, and if you don't like that fact, too bad.

Third off, the retired commander in the reserves has about as little chance of being tried for mutiny, much less being put to death, as I have of discovering the Grand Unified Theory of Physics. Much more likely is being forced out of the reserves (if he's still in it, since he is, after all, retired) for conduct tending to prove that he's an idiot.

Fourth off, there's a severe lack of fact-checking involved in those articles. No individual can indict another person; at most they can bring evidence of criminal conduct before a grand jury, and it's the grand jury that indicts, usually at the instance of the prosecutor.

Fifth off, I seriously doubt that any US prosecutor, who after all answers to the Attorney General, who is after all a member of Obama's cabinet, would let anything go forward with this.

(And this fantastic flight from reality takes place on an Objectivist forum, of all place, where people are supposedly attached to the facts of reality.)

Jeffrey S.

Thank you. I'm getting really tired of this reactionary crap from objectivists. They're supposed to know better. Unfortunately even some of the ones I know personally are prone to simply gainsaying some point because at first glance it's not in line with their beliefs. The whole concept of a rational series of statements intended to establish a proposition goes right out the window when they hear some trigger word like "Obama", "healthcare", or "socialism." Being a student of general human nature, I find it fascinating to see how people who profess to come to conclusions based only on rational thought actually arrive at those conclusions subconsciously through reactionary emotion. Hardly good representatives of the philosophy.

[Selene]

First off, I don't see how getting elected POTUS while not properly qualified can be considered "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", which is what treason is.

Second off, every bit of evidence points to the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, so he is properly qualified, and if you don't like that fact, too bad.

Third off, the retired commander in the reserves has about as little chance of being tried for mutiny, much less being put to death, as I have of discovering the Grand Unified Theory of Physics. Much more likely is being forced out of the reserves (if he's still in it, since he is, after all, retired) for conduct tending to prove that he's an idiot.

Fourth off, there's a severe lack of fact-checking involved in those articles. No individual can indict another person; at most they can bring evidence of criminal conduct before a grand jury, and it's the grand jury that indicts, usually at the instance of the prosecutor.

Fifth off, I seriously doubt that any US prosecutor, who after all answers to the Attorney General, who is after all a member of Obama's cabinet, would let anything go forward with this.

(And this fantastic flight from reality takes place on an Objectivist forum, of all place, where people are supposedly attached to the facts of reality.)

Jeffrey S.

Thank you. I'm getting really tired of this reactionary crap from objectivists. They're supposed to know better. Unfortunately even some of the ones I know personally are prone to simply gainsaying some point because at first glance it's not in line with their beliefs. The whole concept of a rational series of statements intended to establish a proposition goes right out the window when they hear some trigger word like "Obama", "healthcare", or "socialism." Being a student of general human nature, I find it fascinating to see how people who profess to come to conclusions based only on rational thought actually arrive at those conclusions subconsciously through reactionary emotion. Hardly good representatives of the philosophy.

Shades:

Anymore than a priest who claims celibacy while he is molesting the choir boy, personal immorality and irrationality does not reflect on the philosophy, but on the individual.

Are you finished with the strawmen, or do you have a whole roomful?

Let's see, I am against medical research because Joseph Mengele experimented with real people. Hmmm

Have you read much of Ayn?

Adam

[shadesofgrey]

First off, I don't see how getting elected POTUS while not properly qualified can be considered "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", which is what treason is.

Second off, every bit of evidence points to the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, so he is properly qualified, and if you don't like that fact, too bad.

Third off, the retired commander in the reserves has about as little chance of being tried for mutiny, much less being put to death, as I have of discovering the Grand Unified Theory of Physics. Much more likely is being forced out of the reserves (if he's still in it, since he is, after all, retired) for conduct tending to prove that he's an idiot.

Fourth off, there's a severe lack of fact-checking involved in those articles. No individual can indict another person; at most they can bring evidence of criminal conduct before a grand jury, and it's the grand jury that indicts, usually at the instance of the prosecutor.

Fifth off, I seriously doubt that any US prosecutor, who after all answers to the Attorney General, who is after all a member of Obama's cabinet, would let anything go forward with this.

(And this fantastic flight from reality takes place on an Objectivist forum, of all place, where people are supposedly attached to the facts of reality.)

Jeffrey S.

Thank you. I'm getting really tired of this reactionary crap from objectivists. They're supposed to know better. Unfortunately even some of the ones I know personally are prone to simply gainsaying some point because at first glance it's not in line with their beliefs. The whole concept of a rational series of statements intended to establish a proposition goes right out the window when they hear some trigger word like "Obama", "healthcare", or "socialism." Being a student of general human nature, I find it fascinating to see how people who profess to come to conclusions based only on rational thought actually arrive at those conclusions subconsciously through reactionary emotion. Hardly good representatives of the philosophy.

Shades:

Anymore than a priest who claims celibacy while he is molesting the choir boy, personal immorality and irrationality does not reflect on the philosophy, but on the individual.

Are you finished with the strawmen, or do you have a whole roomful?

Let's see, I am against medical research because Joseph Mengele experimented with real people. Hmmm

Have you read much of Ayn?

Adam

Well, define much. What an individual thinks doesn't really matter to me, but when someone has immoral or irrational views under the guise of a philosophy that teaches the opposite, I have to take issue. For example, what that priest claimed in your example should, while being unpleasant to most people, be particularly offensive to Catholics.