Obama Committing Fraud and Treason: Multiple Grand Juries (Part I)

PRAVDA ^ | 7.5.09 | Neil Turner

[TheWasteLand]

This article needs more “quotation marks”.

[MHGinTN]

You won't want to miss this one ... PING))))))

[trumandogz]

The 5th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution provides that: … ‘No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.’ It doesn’t say ‘Federal’ Grand Jury, a ‘Grand Jury called and impaneled by a Judge, Special Prosecutor, or District Attorney’, nor does it say a ‘Government impaneled’ Grand Jury.

Does this mean that all the actors that have been indicted by Jack McCoy on Law & Order are actually under indictment?

After all, the Constitution does not specify that a Grand Jury must be impaneled by a real district attorney?

And how about President Bush, VP Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who were all indicted by these so called "People's Grand Juries?"

Are they really under indictment?

[Uncle Chip]

"Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, … the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.."

Hmmmmm -- perhaps the citizen branch of government

[LucyT]

What everyone knows:

Most of America knows, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama,

is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States (POTUS) and Commander in Chief (CinC)

per Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the U.S.

Most of America also knows, beyond any reasonable doubt, that all 535 members of Congress,

the Federal Courts, the Supreme Court, and ALL the Media (including FNC)

are either in the tank for - or paid off - or intimidated by ... “

... Thanks, MHGinTN.

[GBA]

Pravda is better than the NY Times ping to self

[Polarik]

I thought that I'd give you a taste of what I've been writing today:

We live in the Digital Age of communication and the virtual world of the Internet that has not only changed the way we send and receive information, but also how we interpret that information. Our interpretation of information on the Internet is heavily influenced by the trust we place in the sender of that information. We have seen instances where the exact, same information that has been sent by two different sources has produced entirely different responses that range from full agreement to total disbelief.

The Internet is primarily a visual medium and its visual imagery tends to evoke more polarizing responses than auditory ones.

The Internet permits hundreds of millions of people to view the same images, and to interpret them in the same way as they were intended to be. The deciding factor, however, in how images are perceived is contingent on the context in which they appear. The people who design the visuals we see, whether it’s on the Internet, on TV, or in print, pay particular attention to structuring the context in ways that convey their own interpretation. The extent to which the public will accept or reject another person’s interpretation depends on the amount of trust that viewer places on its source.

For a great many people, any media that bears the name of Barack Obama, that also bears testimony to his legitimacy as President, will be treated as the unadulterated truth, no questions asked. Barack Obama has a special personal image that he and the media go to great lengths to preserve. Obama engenders the kind of following that a rock star would envy, and being ranked as the top celebrity in America only confirms this status. Part and parcel to that popularity, in the minds of his followers, is the belief that Obama’s biographical narrative is totally true. That is why, whenever that biography is challenged, his followers take it as a personal affront to them.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more apparent than in the digital image purported to be a copy of Barack Obama’s original birth certificate. His followers are incensed that their leader’s legitimacy is being questioned. Conversely, they see no disconnect nor hypocrisy in delegitimizing John McCain in regards to his stated birthplace, his activities as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, his patriotism, his voting record, and most egregious of all, discriminating against him on the basis of his age. Yet, this is a typical characteristic of Obama’s followers in that they can maintain a double standard while simultaneously denying that one exists.

Yet, the cold, hard facts remain that Barack Hussein Obama has hidden from public scrutiny any concrete proof that would validate both his life’s narrative and more importantly, his Constitutional eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

Instead of spending $12 to obtain a certified paper copy of his birth record and presenting it to any government official, be it state or federal, Barack Obama has posted on his website, a fabricated image an abridged version of a birth certificate known as a “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB).

Instead of spending $12 to obtain a certified paper copy of his birth record and presenting it to any government official, be it state or federal, Barack Obama has illegally used $1 million in campaign contributions in legal fees to prevent his real, original birth certificate from ever being seen.

The fabricated image posted on Obama’s own website now become one of the most recognizable and infamous images in political history, and the historical storyline that goes along with this iconic symbol of secrecy is equally as compelling. It’s as if a President declared war, but never expected to fight one.

Yet, for the past year, the battles continue in a war of words and legal wrangling between Obama, his legal team, and his plausibly deniable shills at Factcheck, and We the People, the citizens of the United States, who literally live and die by the Constitution, who wanted nothing more than for both candidates who ran for President to be equally forthcoming when their Constitutional status was in doubt.

I doubt if anyone reading this document would allow an unknown person into his or her home after refusing to provide a legal form of identification. In essence, we allowed an unknown person to occupy the office of President who has also refused to identify himself.

Just as might be the case when you let an unknown stranger into your home and then find all of your possessions stolen, so, too, have Americans let an unknown stranger into their governmental home, and are only now learning how much of our money and freedoms have been stolen.

[bert]

So, the conclusion is that Justice Scalia is the root of this endeavor.

A question arises, who is able to bring a suit when the justice department refuses to bring an indictment and bring the userper to trial?

I think the military will ultimately be forced to get involved. There must be a revolution

[Man50D]

People can sing up to be on a Grand Jury at www.americangrandjury.org

[Man50D]

sing=sign

[Man50D]

A question arises, who is able to bring a suit when the justice department refuses to bring an indictment and bring the userper to trial?

The Citizen Grand jury makes the decision to indict, not the judicial system.

[real_patriotic_american]

Intriguing! We the People WILL be heard!

[dennisw]

Btt

[MHGinTN]

We the people will be ignored ... open your eyes.

[bert]

Ok, when justice refuses the indictment

[shield]

ping

[lucias_clay]

This being run by the Russian propaganda paper at the very time Barry is visiting Russia. Excellent.

Now I wonder if the KGB has infiltrated the Hawaiian birth certificate archives and might release the real document soon.

BWahahahahahaha.

[mcshot]

Bookmark bump.

Glad you’re here.