POLL: Has Barack Obama Committed Treason?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://conservativetribune.com/has-obama-committed-treason/

POLL: Has Barack Obama Committed Treason?



POLL: Has Barack Obama Committed Treason?


Many people have asked if or suggested that President Obama has committed treason. He has certainly done many questionable and scandalous things that could be considered criminal and most certainly constitutes treason.

What do you think? Is Obama a treasonous president? We think the answer is yes, and we’ll give some reasons why.

What exactly constitutes “treason”?

The Constitution of the United States defines the crime of “treason” in Article III, Section III. It reads:


“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


“The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 2381 further defines “treason” as:


Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Now, knowing the true, proper and legal definitions of treason, we ask, has President Barack Obama committed treason?

What follows are some examples of actions taken by the President or administration members under his direct control that can be construed as levying physical or economic war against the Constitution and people of the United States, adhereing to our enemies and giving them aid and comfort. Let it be noted that we consider direct violations of the oath he swore, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, to be an act of levying war against the United States.

It is our belief that, should it be found that the President is indeed guilty of committing treason for any or all of the following crimes, he should at the very least be impeached, if not imprisoned.

NDAA

The indefinite detention provision of The National Defense Authorization Act, that allows for American citizens to be arrested and locked away without charges or trial for suspicion of terrorist activity, is a clear violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and possibly even the Ninth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

NSA spying

The warrantless wiretapping and data-mining of American citizens conducted by the National Security Agency constitute a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, and has a distinct chilling effect upon the First Amendment right of free speech.

IRS targeting of opposition

The President has used the IRS to directly harass and impede the First Amendment protected rights of free speech, religious liberty and political activity of conservative and libertarian American citizens, in an attempt to silence dissent and opposition. The intrusive questions of the IRS aimed at conservative and libertarian groups could also be construed as violations of a person’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure and Fifth Amendment right of due process and self-incrimination.

Benghazi

The President and members of his administration have lied to the American people in their attempt to coverup the terror attack in Benghazi. His failure to protect American citizens serving the U.S. overseas, and his failure to hunt down, kill, prosecute or otherwise serve justice to the terrorists responsible for the deaths of four Americans, can only be viewed as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Fast and Furious

Operation Fast and Furious, the botched gun-running scheme by the ATF and DOJ, placed firearms in the hands of known criminals and drug cartel members, and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, which can be classified as giving aid to the enemies of the U.S. Furthermore, the underhanded goal of the operation was to implement further gun control restrictions upon law-abiding American citizens, which is an infringement and violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Arming Syrian rebels

The President’s administration went to great lengths to secretly and overtly arm and assist members of the Syrian opposition forces, many of whom were known to be Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists. Once again, he has given aid and comfort to our enemies.

Undeclared war in Libya

President Obama ordered Naval and Air strikes on the sovereign nation of Libya, stationed a multitude of forces around the country and sent in covert and overt ground forces, in the attempt to overthrow the regime of Mohammar Gadhafi. This was all done without a formal declaration of war by Congress, or even an authorization of force, which is a violation of the Constitution, therefore a violation of his oath of office.

Unilateral Obamacare delays

Obamacare, as much as the American citizens may dislike it, was duly passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, and is therefore the law of the land. The President has unilaterally changed or delayed various provisions and aspects of the law, without Congressional approval. This is a violation of his oath by failing to faithfully execute the Office of the President, which means to uphold the laws as they are written.

More failures to faithfully execute the law

The President and his administration have taken it upon themselves to decide which laws they will enforce and which ones they will ignore. Laws like the Defense of Marriage Act, border security and immigration laws, work requirements for welfare and mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws have all been summarily ignored or changed by the administration, without the due process of Congress. Though some may agree with his intentions or even the outcomes, he has not followed the process as set out in the Constitution.

Executive actions on gun control

The President has made known his distaste for the Second Amendment and his agenda to disarm law-abiding American citizens. When Congress failed to pass gun control measures, because the American people told them overwhelmingly not to, the President took Executive actions of his own to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. He has done this through VA regulations disarming veterans, EPA regulations attacking lead and ammunition, ATF regulations attacking gun manufacturers and dealers, and regulations aimed at broadening the definition of mental health in order to disqualify more Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

Promotion of known anti-Americans/Muslim Brotherhood members in administration

President Obama has associated himself with, and given jobs in his administration to, people known to be anti-American, socialists, current or former terrorists, or members of terrorist affiliated groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. People like Bill Ayers, Eric Holder, Van Jones, Huma Abedin and Mohamed Elibiary are just a few from a long list.

Acceptance of Chairmanship of UN Security Council


President Obama became the first U.S. President to chair the UN Security Council. In the process of accepting this position, he has violated Article I, Section IX, Clause VIII of the Constitution, which reads:


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

This is by no means a full and complete list of questionable, scandalous and/or criminal activity by the President. But it is obvious, from this list alone, that the President has violated his oath of Office and the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend. He has adhered to and given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, and has committed acts of war upon the citizens of the United States.

[revelarts]

yes he has
and so did Bush.

[gabosaurus]

yes he has and so did Bush.

Hmmm, where should we start:

Wiretapping surveillance in defiance of the law
Lying to Congress and inducing American citizens to support an illegal and unjust war
Reckless indifference to the lives and welfare of American troops
Illegal acts of torture in violation of U.S. laws and treaties

If you read the Kucinich/Wexler impeachment resolution , it contains 35 articles covering the Iraq war, the Valerie Plame affair, creating a case for war with Iran, capture and treatment of prisoners of war, spying and or wiretapping inside the United States, use of signing statements, failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas, the 2004 elections, medicare, Hurricane Katrina, global warming, and 9/11.

[Gunny]

Hmmm, where should we start:

Wiretapping surveillance in defiance of the law
Lying to Congress and inducing American citizens to support an illegal and unjust war
Reckless indifference to the lives and welfare of American troops
Illegal acts of torture in violation of U.S. laws and treaties

If you read the Kucinich/Wexler impeachment resolution , it contains 35 articles covering the Iraq war, the Valerie Plame affair, creating a case for war with Iran, capture and treatment of prisoners of war, spying and or wiretapping inside the United States, use of signing statements, failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas, the 2004 elections, medicare, Hurricane Katrina, global warming, and 9/11.

All of which was baseless BS. Throwing sh*t against the wall to see if any stuck.

[gabosaurus]

All of which was baseless BS. Throwing sh*t against the wall to see if any stuck.

Most conservatives think so. As they throw their own shit against the wall.

[Gunny]

Most conservatives think so. As they throw their own shit against the wall.

No, that would be the GOP. But even THEY have NOTHING on the left. Plame outed herself. Period. You bitch about being outed when you drive into CIA Headquarters in Langley VA every morning? Gee. Secret Squirrel could figure THAT one out.:laugh:

[Redrose]

Most conservatives think so. As they throw their own shit against the wall.

There's no room on that wall, too much Democratic shit on it.

Obama is guilty on all counts, should be in prison.

The WH has contacted Greta VanSusteren to stop reporting about Benghazi and to stop FOX correspondent Jennifer Griffin from reporting there was a "stand down" order. She has several legit sources she cannot reveal, that have indicated there was such an order.

This filthy administration wants to control ALL the media. FOX is not playing his game, he hates that. He doesn't want the American people to know the truth, the truth that he is the biggest enemy we are facing today.

[Kathianne]

All are missing the 'problem' with treason, that which makes the charge more than speculative:


SECTION 3.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Whether Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan the desire of many to use treason for impeachment is not a winning argument.

Since Nixon, too many have called for impeachment, which disturbs many of us that care about the country. What happened with Clinton was wrong, when obstruction of justice was overtaken by salaciousness. The 'right' thought it had the high ground, they were so very wrong.

Over and over again we hear 'impeach!' Sorry, it's the wrong way to go.

[aboutime]

Most conservatives think so. As they throw their own shit against the wall.


Gabby. Many of us have tried to throw YOU against the wall, and you never stick. We haven't got enough of you.

[BoogyMan]

While I doubt that the legal definition of treason has been met by any recent president I will boldly point out that I believe that Mr. Obama is certainly a self serving traitor to the ideals this nation was founded upon and a reckless fool whose folly will be a crushing weight upon our nation for decades.

[aboutime]

Please let your mind be opened, and listen to this:


http://youtu.be/QUvqPgYC4U0

[revelarts]

All are missing the 'problem' with treason, that which makes the charge more than speculative:

Whether Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan the desire of many to use treason for impeachment is not a winning argument.

you make a good point, "treason" is not the right legal term
"high crimes and misdemeanors" is the legal standard for impeachment.

and both bush and Obama qualify.
the Kucinich impeachment docs for Bush only had a few left field points out of the 30 plus LAWS and Constitutional Illegalities specifically noted.

90% of those can be pass directly onto Obama, since he simply continued or INCREASED the level of illegalities previously commited then added a few different ones.

so unless the presidents are above the LAW and the constitution. They should be impeached, period end of story.



Since Nixon, too many have called for impeachment, which disturbs many of us that care about the country. What happened with Clinton was wrong, when obstruction of justice was overtaken by salaciousness. The 'right' thought it had the high ground, they were so very wrong.

Over and over again we hear 'impeach!' Sorry, it's the wrong way to go.

Kath I agree that Clinton's impeachment was over pure BS. However they COULD have found and used constitutional and serious legal grounds to do it, but some areas are considered untouchable by both sides. (because they want their guy to get away with it too?) and what they got was circus.

But i think you know ALL of us "care about the country" as well. But we see the constitution as the foundation of that country, not an unmolested president.
There's no one in the office of the presidency who after breaking laws should retain in the office just so people can "feel good" about the country. Having a crook and law breaker in the seat doesn't make me feel good about the country.

From my perspective the country is weakened and lessened when the congress allows the behavior to continue. . And we now see, since it's happened so often, that people tell me things like " ...other presidents have ignored that part of the constitution and nothing happened, sooo it's REALLY OK!".
the country is harmed by that attitude.
If we really believe in the rule of law then we can't condone illegal and unconstitutional actions, even by those of our own party.

But the partisan blindness is an unholy wonder to behold.
Each side seems to the think the other's CiC is evil incarnate, not fit to live.
But their guy has never run red light accept to get a pregnant woman to the dr.. And even murder is justified as "legal" if their guy does it.
It's amazing. Most people don't have that kind of blind loyalty for family members.

[gabosaurus]

But the partisan blindness is an unholy wonder to behold.
Each side seems to the think the other's CiC is evil incarnate, not fit to live.


Partisan politics is Satan's workshop. Religion is pretty much the same way. You believe what you believe and everyone else is doomed to hell.
My political activism years were enjoyable and enlightening (to me, not as much to those on the old USMB), but I am just as happy having put it all behind me. I'll gladly leave the aggravation to others.

[Drummond]

This thread asks a question, which in turn asks for others' opinions. What it doesn't do is ask whether Obama has been charged with treason, or whether such a charge either has, or is likely to, fall flat on its face after being made.

In my opinion, Obama is definitely guilty of treason against the United States. No doubt I could give several answers to support that if I tried ... but one really stands out for me.

Obama publicly announced his intention to withdraw troops from Iraq. He was explicit about it, giving sufficient detail about his plans for that detail to be helpful to the enemy .. an enemy already proven to be an enemy of America.

I fail to see how this, alone, doesn't settle the matter. That no formal charges have been made on this isn't the issue. It's what Obama has DONE, and provably so, that is.

[Jeff]

yes he has
and so did Bush.


Hmmm, where should we start:

Wiretapping surveillance in defiance of the law
Lying to Congress and inducing American citizens to support an illegal and unjust war
Reckless indifference to the lives and welfare of American troops
Illegal acts of torture in violation of U.S. laws and treaties

If you read the Kucinich/Wexler impeachment resolution , it contains 35 articles covering the Iraq war, the Valerie Plame affair, creating a case for war with Iran, capture and treatment of prisoners of war, spying and or wiretapping inside the United States, use of signing statements, failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas, the 2004 elections, medicare, Hurricane Katrina, global warming, and 9/11.

Sounds perfect, hey he did it so now we can, I would love to hear y'all teaching your kids when they use that logic, "But Mom everyone is doing it, Ok than Honey you can jump off the bridge as well " :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

This thread asks a question, which in turn asks for others' opinions. What it doesn't do is ask whether Obama has been charged with treason, or whether such a charge either has, or is likely to, fall flat on its face after being made.

In my opinion, Obama is definitely guilty of treason against the United States. No doubt I could give several answers to support that if I tried ... but one really stands out for me.

Obama publicly announced his intention to withdraw troops from Iraq. He was explicit about it, giving sufficient detail about his plans for that detail to be helpful to the enemy .. an enemy already proven to be an enemy of America.

I fail to see how this, alone, doesn't settle the matter. That no formal charges have been made on this isn't the issue. It's what Obama has DONE, and provably so, that is.

That doesn't make sense. In what way did an "enemy" take advantage of Obama announcing his intention to withdraw troops? What was "helpful"? We were in Iraq. ISIS started in Syria and was nothing more than part of an internal power struggle when we withdrew from Iraq. I agree we withdrew too soon, and it was a dumbass decision. Hardly grounds for treason though.

[Drummond]

That doesn't make sense. In what way did an "enemy" take advantage of Obama announcing his intention to withdraw troops?

I'm very surprised by this. Not necessarily that you might feel moved to disagree ... that's not my point. Rather, that I'd have thought I was not only making good sense, but if anything, stating the obvious ?

Imagine this scenario: yourself, as an 'insurgent' - a leader of them - in Iraq, fighting American forces. The opposition you are getting from American forces seems never-ending, and is having its bad effect on your own side.

Along comes Obama, declaring his intention to WITHDRAW the forces you're fighting ... and he even goes so far as to give a rough timetable for the withdrawal !!!

So ... you, as an insurgent, would be filled with renewed hope (... after you'd stopped laughing, of course !!). You'd know that if you can only hold out until the withdrawal is scheduled for, YOU, and not those ranged against you, can prevail in the longer term.

This just has to be one hell of a morale-booster .... for AMERICA'S ENEMIES. More, it's useful as a recruitment tool.

More even than this ... you'd know that you can employ tactics designed to take full advantage of Obama's stated intention !! You'd know that you can cut your own attacking force down, holding some in reserve. This has not only the effect of saving that reserve AS a reserve for future use, but, that you might be able to fool your enemy into thinking that withdrawal plans are easier and less costly than they in fact ARE. In short, you allow your enemy to live in a fool's paradise when it comes to accurately gauging the REAL strength and capabilities of its opposition.

We see, today, the extent of Obama's blunder (... assuming it WAS one, and not actually a more pernicious tactic, even MORE in line with a 'treason' charge !). ISIS is in Iraq in strength, killing and terrorising to an extent which they'd never have managed had Obama not done what he did !

NOW ... isn't ALL of this just TOO obvious, Gunny ?? And I don't even have a military background to help me see this !!!!

So I have to ask you, in view of the above ... how is it that you came to ask me:-


In what way did an "enemy" take advantage of Obama announcing his intention to withdraw troops?


What was "helpful"? We were in Iraq. ISIS started in Syria and was nothing more than part of an internal power struggle when we withdrew from Iraq. I agree we withdrew too soon, and it was a dumbass decision. Hardly grounds for treason though.

'Dumbass' seems to be a good word, doesn't it ? However, you're automatically assuming sheer stupidity was / is at work. I ask: HOW CAN YOU BE SURE ?

Gunny, Obama has advisers, as do all Presidents. People way better than me, but of course, and I suggest - just possibly - even better than you. Now, even assuming sheer stupidity from Obama and no more than that ... he'd have had military experts giving him counsel. So tell me ... in the face of that, doesn't the 'dumbass' presumption, as a comprehensive answer, wear a little thin ?

At absolute minimum, Gunny, you have to assume a determination existed to defy advice readily available, that was more sensible !! What was at the root of that determination ?

[revelarts]

Sounds perfect, hey he did it so now we can, I would love to hear y'all teaching your kids when they use that logic, "But Mom everyone is doing it, Ok than Honey you can jump off the bridge as well " :rolleyes:

I can't speak for gabby but I tell my kid that both should be on trial for their actions.


I'm amazed at how people can here can support one so wildly over the other,

[jimnyc]

you make a good point, "treason" is not the right legal term
"high crimes and misdemeanors" is the legal standard for impeachment.

and both bush and Obama qualify.
the Kucinich impeachment docs for Bush only had a few left field points out of the 30 plus LAWS and Constitutional Illegalities specifically noted.

To give you an idea about Kucinich's crap - even Nancy Pelosi wouldn't support it!! It never even made it to a vote in the house. I KNOW that doesn't matter as to whether or not for sure the charges are legit - but if Pelosi thought there was a bit to bite on - she would have bit down like the rabid dog she is and never let go. He did this with GWB after his failed attempt to do the same with Cheney - which Pelosi also eventually nixed.

I know this will turn into a long drawn out diatribe - but Kucinich is and always has been a nutter. Just simply someone I would NEVER use as a citation or backup for my beliefs or comments.

[revelarts]

To give you an idea about Kucinich's crap - even Nancy Pelosi wouldn't support it!! It never even made it to a vote in the house. I KNOW that doesn't matter as to whether or not for sure the charges are legit - but if Pelosi thought there was a bit to bite on - she would have bit down like the rabid dog she is and never let go. He did this with GWB after his failed attempt to do the same with Cheney - which Pelosi also eventually nixed.

I know this will turn into a long drawn out diatribe - but Kucinich is and always has been a nutter. Just simply someone I would NEVER use as a citation or backup for my beliefs or comments.

:rolleyes:
attacking the messenger,
assuming someone "Pelosi" would have attacked if she had the chance.

One's bad logic the other is just false.
Kucinich documented the LAWS, the Constitutional articles and Bushs actions in breaking them.
if you've got a problem with the facts attack there. not the mail man.

You know by now Pelosi is a team player as is Obama. "we're looking forward and not backward" they are covering each others arses.
it's BS to think that the D and Rs always and only have it out for each other.
watch Pelosi here try to placate her left base by shifting blame for NOT attacking to Obama "I think the Iraq was awful and I set up an investigation ...but Obama wanted to move on...sooo.." (but Pelosi is one of the biggest liars i've ever seen so take that for what it's worth.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmMOxfut13k
start at the 3;45 mark.

but we've gone over this before
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34511-International-Permission%92-Trumps-Congressional-Permission-For-Military-Actions&p=532854#post532854

[jimnyc]

:rolleyes:
attacking the messenger,
assuming someone "Pelosi" would have attacked if she had the chance.

One's bad logic the other is just false.
Kucinich documented the LAWS and the Constitutional articles and Bushs actions in breaking them.
if you've got a problem with the facts attack there. not the mail man.

You know by now Pelosi is a team player as is Obama. "we're looking forward and not backward" they are covering each others arses.
it's BS to think that the D and Rs always and only have it out for each other.
watch Pelosi here try to placate her left base by shifting blame for NOT attacking to Obama "I think the Iraq was awful and I set up an investigation ...but Obama wanted to move on...sooo.."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmMOxfut13k
start at the 3;45 mark.

but we've gone over this before

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34511-International-Permission%92-Trumps-Congressional-Permission-For-Military-Actions&p=532854#post532854

Kucinich is a truther for 9/11. He also feels we should give reparations to every citizen of Iraq. Sorry if I giggle at ANYTHING that comes out of that idiots mouth.

[jimnyc]

Kucinich documented the LAWS, the Constitutional articles and Bushs actions in breaking them.

And NO, YOU believe things were broken. Not everyone agrees with you. And having a nutter lead the charge certainly didn't help back then.

[Gunny]

I'm very surprised by this. Not necessarily that you might feel moved to disagree ... that's not my point. Rather, that I'd have thought I was not only making good sense, but if anything, stating the obvious ?

Imagine this scenario: yourself, as an 'insurgent' - a leader of them - in Iraq, fighting American forces. The opposition you are getting from American forces seems never-ending, and is having its bad effect on your own side.

Along comes Obama, declaring his intention to WITHDRAW the forces you're fighting ... and he even goes so far as to give a rough timetable for the withdrawal !!!

So ... you, as an insurgent, would be filled with renewed hope (... after you'd stopped laughing, of course !!). You'd know that if you can only hold out until the withdrawal is scheduled for, YOU, and not those ranged against you, can prevail in the longer term.

This just has to be one hell of a morale-booster .... for AMERICA'S ENEMIES. More, it's useful as a recruitment tool.

More even than this ... you'd know that you can employ tactics designed to take full advantage of Obama's stated intention !! You'd know that you can cut your own attacking force down, holding some in reserve. This has not only the effect of saving that reserve AS a reserve for future use, but, that you might be able to fool your enemy into thinking that withdrawal plans are easier and less costly than they in fact ARE. In short, you allow your enemy to live in a fool's paradise when it comes to accurately gauging the REAL strength and capabilities of its opposition.

We see, today, the extent of Obama's blunder (... assuming it WAS one, and not actually a more pernicious tactic, even MORE in line with a 'treason' charge !). ISIS is in Iraq in strength, killing and terrorising to an extent which they'd never have managed had Obama not done what he did !

NOW ... isn't ALL of this just TOO obvious, Gunny ?? And I don't even have a military background to help me see this !!!!

So I have to ask you, in view of the above ... how is it that you came to ask me:-





'Dumbass' seems to be a good word, doesn't it ? However, you're automatically assuming sheer stupidity was / is at work. I ask: HOW CAN YOU BE SURE ?

Gunny, Obama has advisers, as do all Presidents. People way better than me, but of course, and I suggest - just possibly - even better than you. Now, even assuming sheer stupidity from Obama and no more than that ... he'd have had military experts giving him counsel. So tell me ... in the face of that, doesn't the 'dumbass' presumption, as a comprehensive answer, wear a little thin ?

At absolute minimum, Gunny, you have to assume a determination existed to defy advice readily available, that was more sensible !! What was at the root of that determination ?

I think he's proven he's a dumbass. I wouldn't know where to begin to list examples.:laugh:

That still doesn't make him guilty of treason. Johnson and Nixon did the same thing.

[Gaffer]

Kucinich? The biggest nut case in Ohio? The proof that northern Ohio is filled with stupid people. This guy is so far out in left field he can't even see the stadium.

[namvet]

A prophetic warning from then-President George W. Bush before he left office about what would happen if the U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq too soon is getting new attention in light of the Islamic State’s gains, as each of his predictions appears to be coming true.

story (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/11/bush-in-2007-delivered-eerily-accurate-warning-about-iraq-unrest/)

congrads Obama on your Vietnam

[gabosaurus]

I can't speak for gabby but I tell my kid that both should be on trial for their actions.
I'm amazed at how people can here can support one so wildly over the other,

My kid is 13, so she doesn't know or care at this point.
I don't absolve either or their deserved blame. Nor have I ever felt that either should be impeached. I do feel Dubya was guilty of war crimes in violation of international law. I have expressed this many times in the past.

[Gunny]

Section 3: Treason
I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iva_Toguri)



Section 3 defines treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason) and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attainder) of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the people of the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King, or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Parte_Bollman), 8 U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 75 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/8/75/case.html) (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#ci te_note-14)
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilson) wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overt_act), or a confession by the accused in open court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_open_court), to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1695).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#ci te_note-15)
In Cramer v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cramer_v._United_States), 325 U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 1 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/325/1/case.html) (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#ci te_note-16) In Haupt v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haupt_v._United_States&action=edit&redlink=1), 330 U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 631 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/330/631/case.html) (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness) and federal agents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government) investigating the crime, for example).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Treason is definitive. It isn't opinion-based. I've heard this word slung around since Clinton.

Does anyone REALLY want to set that precedent? KNOWING the next time your particular candidate is in office, you can just wait for the hammer to fall? People don't consider the long-term consequences of their actions.

[jimnyc]

My kid is 13, so she doesn't know or care at this point.
I don't absolve either or their deserved blame. Nor have I ever felt that either should be impeached. I do feel Dubya was guilty of war crimes in violation of international law. I have expressed this many times in the past.

You thought him guilty of war crimes, but didn't want him impeached?

Anyway, do you REALLY want to stand by your statement, that you never wanted him impeached? Don't make me start searching and posting links on that one, we could be here all day. Suffice to say, you DID call for his impeachment. :)

[jimnyc]

Ok, only one, to make the point...


Back in 2005, there were quite a few liberals that felt much the same way about Bush that many of you feel about Obama. We wanted to organize protests and march on Washington. We did stage quite a few protests that brought some cities to a standstill.
Conservatives felt we were traitors who hated our country. That not supporting our President was endangering the troops by demonstrating weakness and a divided nation. And that, like him or dislike him, we should the president because he represented America.
We wanted Bush impeached. Conservatives laughed at us and call us traitors.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41781-Twelve-questions-about-a-citizen-s-duty-A-quiz-for-those-that-dare-to-answer&p=652128#post652128

[aboutime]

Doesn't anyone get tired of reading, or hearing the same demands almost every day?

Demands to Impeach Obama only replaced the same Demands to Impeach Bush.

How's that worked for any of us so far?

Think honestly, and seriously about it. Impeaching Obama in our Politically Correct, or Incorrect World of Partisanship would probably take until 2016, no matter which Political party has control of the Senate. Millions, upon Millions, if not Billions of Taxpayer dollars would be used, and wasted to PAD LAWYER pockets as they drag out all attempts to Impeach Obama, or a HAM SANDWICH.

The best, most reasonable, most effective way to get rid of Obama will come during the election cycle for the next LIAR who eventually moves into the White House on Pennsylvania ave.

We are all angry, tired, disgusted, offended, insulted, and Pissed that Obama is doing everything WE ALL KNOW he is doing.
But...the real, only way to get him GONE...is Constitutionally..on election day.

[grannyhawkins]

This isn't my list that I'm postin, but I think the unwillingness of the feds to secure our borders, is a treasonous act, which would mean a bunch of Presidents violated their oath by giving aid and comfort. Y'all feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not some super political savant, which I'm sure y'all have figured out already :laugh:



Obama’s Acts of Treason:
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/09/21/obamas-acts-of-treason-violations-of-federal-laws/

1. Perpetrating acts of fraud, perjury and conspiracy in his refusal to confirm his lawful eligibility to serve as president under the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, constituting impeachable offenses of high crimes and misdemeanors adumbrated in U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 4;

2. Surrendering sovereign U.S. war-making to foreign powers and international authorities by attacking Libya without consulting Congress, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 and U.S. Code Title 50, r 33:1541-1548;

3. Accepting foreign title and office while acting as U.S. President and without consulting Congress when in 2009, Obama assumed the Chairmanship of the UN Security Council, the international body responsible for declaring war on behalf of the UN, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9;

4. Making bribery attempts in word and in deed, as Obama administration offered bribes to at least three Federal candidates for office: Joe Sestak, Andrew Romanoff and Jim Matheson, in violation of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 201;

5. Defying a Federal Court Order by refusing to halt the unconstitutional implementation of the “Patient Healthcare and Affordable Care Act of 2010, popularly known as “ObamaCare”, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and Article III, Sections 1 & 2;

6. Defying a Federal Court Order by refusing to grant lawful deep water drilling permits, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and Article III, Sections 1 & 2;

7. Executive Branch creation and implementation of regulations asserting unconstitutional force of Federal law on matters explicitly rejected by or contrary to the will and intent of Congress, specifically the EPA implementation of Cap and Trade, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 1 and Section 8;

8. Refusing to secure our broken borders from illegal alien invasion, international criminal incursion, and terrorist cadre penetration, in violation of U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 and Article IV, Section 4;


9. Executive Branch malfeasance and impeding the administration of justice by preventing the U.S. Department of Justice from investigating crimes committed for the direct benefit of the President by presidential associates including: voter intimidation at the hands of the New Black Panthers and ACORN election fraud, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and U.S. Criminal Code Section 135, (Comp. St. § 10305);

10. Direct mobilizing and funding of mob violence, sedition and insurrection, as witnessed in Wisconsin, by the President’s own reelection campaign group Organizing for America, and including open statements of incitement to the insurrection by the President himself, in violation of U.S.Penal Code, Chapter 115, Section 2383;

11. Executive Branch usurpation of lawmaking powers voiding duly enacted legislation of Congress by improperly preventing the U.S. Department of Justice from defending established Federal law – specifically the Defense of Marriage Act, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3;

12. Adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, as witnessed by consorting with, supporting and installing to powerful Federal positions persons who in writing, word and deed have called for and promoted the overthrow of America’s constitutionally guaranteed Republican form of government, and the overthrow of the United States Constitution; including but not limited to William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Van Jones, Dalia Mogahed, Harold Koh, and Eric Holder, in violation of U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section IV and U.S. Penal Code, Section 2385.

[grannyhawkins]

All this border stuff brings up a big question in my mind. Where did all the moozlums in this country come from??? Hail, I ain't that old and I didn't even know what a moozlum was until I walked into a drug store behind one, when the automatic doors opened up and that cold rush of air conditionin, covered me with the stank of a very unclean moozlum. But, they can't all be here on H1-B visas for quickie marts can they??? They can't all be political refugee's??? So how did we come by this large population of moozlums???

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A prophetic warning from then-President George W. Bush before he left office about what would happen if the U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq too soon is getting new attention in light of the Islamic State’s gains, as each of his predictions appears to be coming true.

story (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/11/bush-in-2007-delivered-eerily-accurate-warning-about-iraq-unrest/)

congrads Obama on your Vietnam

The man the leftist.lib/dems and stupid media called stupid hit it all dead on the mark. The dumbass they hailed as a genius did exactly what Bush warned not to do and now is forced to go back in!
How is that for sweet justice levied upon the jackass?
Now bambastard has to go back in and bomb the same people he sought to arm and help against Assad just a short time back. The same people he and his idjits told us were "moderates".
I shouted back then and sided with Assad because I knew and if I could know why couldn't that ffing worm know? Answer is, he did know..
Yet now because of the midterms he must take action.
So it begins again him using our military solely for his political purposes , remember two weeks ago he didn't give a damn about ISIS!
What changed? Public opinion , public outcry and ISIS thumbed his sorry ass.
Simply amazing what a ffing weasel this bastard is IMHO.
He will hit them for his political gain but not because they seek to harm this nation. That's the VERY SAD truth of it.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://truthstreammedia.com/outspoken-military-rebelling-against-obama/

image_pdfimage_print

Would top brass declaring resistance against ‘domestic enemy’?

Anyone paying the slightest attention these days has to wonder what the hell Obama is even doing (arguably he has ‘left the building’ and ‘checked out’). Anyone paying better attention might be wondering who Obama is really serving… because it clearly isn’t American interests.

Who can count the number of tipping points towards potential wider war or the rise of future potent enemies around the world… and why is it happening?

The Conservative Tribune makes the case that a slew of criticism against President Obama’s policies in the middle east, in response to terrorism, the border and beyond (Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Bergdahl, ad naseum) amount to an out-and-out “rebellion.”

The article hints that there are many more unhappy generals and top officials in office, while the retired brass, unencumbered by the chain of command and employment, are more inclined to speak openly about the perceived anti-American policies.

Indeed, there have been widespread reports – ongoing for years throughout the Obama Administration – about top military officials who’ve been summarily fired, reassigned, forcibly retired and “purged.” There are hundreds of examples behind a handful of high profile reports on the subject.

Here are just a few examples The Conservative Tribune cites of high ranking officials bucking Obama:


Retired officers, of course, have more freedom to express their views without concern for the impact such honesty might have on their careers. For example, Air Force Major General Bentley Rayburn and four-star Army General Jack Keane have both spoken out against Obama’s treatment of Islamic terrorists, including his trade of several Guantanamo Bay detainees for accused deserter Bowe Bergdahl. Retired Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin has gone so far as to call for Obama’s impeachment, as has General Patrick Henry Brady.

Retired U.S. Army Major General Paul E. Vallely has publicly argued that America’s current leadership has so damaged individual American liberty that it can be restored only by citizen protests to force the resignations of President Obama and other political leaders. The general has also recently been working to uncover the truth about the Benghazi attacks of 2012, which he says involved an illegal arms deal by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. General Vallely and retired Air Force Brigadier General Charles Jones have formed a “citizen’s council” to challenge the government more directly.

More recently–and more remarkably–active duty officers have been giving vent to their frustrations and concerns about the current administration. Active-duty 4-star Marine General and US Southern Command Commander John Kelly has commented on the grave threat to America’s existence that the current border crisis represents. Even more remarkable, the Commandant of the Marine Corp himself, General James Amos, recently made comments highly critical of the Obama administration’s leadership and policy in Iraq.

Read more of the case laid out, within the context of other purged military officials and the disaffected.


Active-duty 4-star Marine General and US Southern Command Commander John Kelly has commented on the grave threat to America’s existence that the current border crisis represents. Even more remarkable, the Commandant of the Marine Corp himself, General James Amos, recently made comments highly critical of the Obama administration’s leadership and policy in Iraq.

^^^^^^ I think these men may have their heads screwed on straight.
When current duty top ranking officers speak like this imagine what those retired are saying.
From what I've seen over the years (6 years) Obama's so-called "mistakes" are part of his fundamental plan to subvert and transform this nation. This nation the ffing worm hates.
He is not my president.. ffk him...I'll show no damn allegiance to a ffing traitor..--Tyr