Would you vote for Obama if you discovered he had committed treason?
A recent YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann reveals something you're not like to find out about on the evening news. Obama is ignoring a federal court order regarding his actions under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZjXHjkzMD4
I supported Obama 4 years ago, but he betrayed so many of his campaign promises, I was fed up before the first year was over. Campaign promises? What else is new. Presidents do that, at least in recent decades.
More troubling than that, though, is the fact that he betrayed his Oath of Office -- that is if he really did re-do his oath after flubbing it on national television. If we can believe him, he swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. And yet he has become a domestic enemy of the Constitution, just like Bush and Clinton before him.
He, like his recent predecessors, has eroded the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. He extended the unPatriot Act, he signed into law the NDAA with its indefinite detention clauses for American citizens, he added his executive comments upon signing laws (attempting to thwart the authority of Congress), he ignored Congress in attacking Libya (consulting the UN, instead), he floated the idea of bypassing Congress altogether and ignoring the Supreme Court (thus suggesting a one-branch government), he sat on a foreign body of government as a sitting president (head of UN security -- illegal), he created a "kill list" which includes American citizens, and on and on. Aren't these treasonable acts? Would you vote for such a president?Hello Lonestar. It is nice to exchange views with you once again. I hope you have been doing well.
Clearly, the present administration has done a few things with which you disagree. Among the assortment of so-called treasonous acts in the OP statement I find one that has been debunked many times. Still, the overzealous and uninformed continue to repeat it, more out of ignorance then ill intent, I suspect.
Perhaps you are referring to Article 1, Section 9 of The Constitution of 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.” {1} It is obvious to most people that the United Nations is not a King, Prince, or foreign state!
President Obama chaired the UN Security Council’s international conference in September 2009. He was joined by the heads of other governments to discuss an agenda of global challenges, including nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Libya held a temporary seat on the council at the time and was represented by Muammar Kaddafi. The Obama administration expressed hope that the month-long appointment would underscore a departure from the Bush administration's strategy of pursuing its own unilateral policies.
Claims that the President’s participation in the global conference violated the US Constitution and is somehow an act of treason are sterling examples of the political hyperbole often heard from the extreme fringes of the political landscape. The drafters of Article 3, Section 3 were careful to define treason in a way that would exclude differences of opinion like the type you are tossing around. {2} It is threads like this one that prove their wisdom.
Thank you, Lonestar, for sharing your opinions with us. It’s always nice to hear what you have to say.
{1} http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html
{2} http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.htmlHi again, Lonestar. Thanks for your extensive comment. I took the liberty of trimming it down since you went far beyond the focus of my comments.
Please do not confuse my trying to correct your misstatements as an effort to change your mind. Your personal conclusions are your own and you are welcome to them. One of your opinions, however, be it right or wrong, is built on a false assumption and my only purpose is bring this to the attention of your readers.
The United States of America is a sovereign nation that has never been a part of any foreign state! How foolish of me, on the other hand, to think it was obvious that the United Nations is not a foreign state. Golly, Lonestar, you have created your own personal definition of a foreign state in order to justify your own personal belief that an act violated the Constitution. The proof is in your own words, “Though the US is a part of the UN, an overwhelming majority of that supra-state are not of the United States. That would make it a foreign state, in my book. Catch my drift?” Your declaring the United Nations is a foreign state does not make it so. Please tell me where I will find the boarders of the United Nations, how I obtain a visa to go there, and how I become a citizen of this foreign state.
Each of the following sources lists the United Nations as one of hundreds of different, present day global organizations. In most of these organizations, the US is one member among an overwhelming majority of other nations and not one, including the United Nations, is described as a foreign state:
1. C.I.A: https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … x-b.html#Z
2. Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/io.html
3. World Affairs Council: https://www.worldaffairsdc.org/internat … ations.php
4. USA Import Export: http://www.usaexportimport.com/world_organizations.html
5. UMDNJ: http://www.umdnj.edu/uroweb/internation … ations.pdf
President Obama personally replaced his own senate approved UN representative, Susan Rice, during a world conference that included other world leaders. Claiming that is treason is absurd, even more so, when it is justified by creating your own personal definition of a foreign state. The notion “Obama clearly accepted a position with a foreign power” only exists in your own mind. If you have a legal authority that agrees with your claim that the UN is a foreign state, I would love the read it.
So, Lonestar, feel free to believe the President violated the Constitution by chairing the UN Security Council conference in 2009 if it makes you feel more patriotic. However, your defining the UN as a foreign state is self-serving. I realize how difficult it is to abandon this delusion. Without it, your claim that The President violated the Constitution has no merit.
Be well, Lonestar. I hope I get to speak with you again soon.Hi Lonestar. You are very welcome. I am glad to see you are still going with the flow. I truly appreciate your making the time to acknowledge my earlier comment. Your ideas are indeed radical but the widespread reliance on false assumptions is a clear sign of inadequate research.
Allow me, if I may, to focus on the three paragraphs in your comments directed to me. In one, you said, "While you're quibbling about semantics, a very real erosion of the Constitution is underway, and Obama's behavior with the UN is only one aspect of a much larger problem." All the followers of your OP statement, including you as the author, are engaged in a written medium. In the world of words, semantics, the study of meanings, is absolutely crucial for comprehension. These are the words you chose to use: “he sat on a foreign body of government as a sitting president (head of UN security -- illegal).” “Aren't these treasonable acts?” These are serious charges that demand that the accuser provide substantial and irrefutable proof. We are discussing lies and distortions here based upon a personal definition of “foreign body of government.” A definition that has been created just to support these claims. When we ask for one legal authority that supports the definition, are we given one? No. We are told, “you're quibbling about semantics.”
Here is another example of twisting words and their meanings into a meaningless, illogical, and irrational statement, “By the definition in the Constitution you gave, that's treason. Giving those corporations aid and comfort by passing legislation injurious to the individual citizen and helpful to those foreign, very selfish bodies is also treason.” Writers who have no respect for semantics should confine their radical delusions to parades and pep-rallies.
Once again, let’s refer to your own words: “Foreign state? You bet it is. They are a governing body and they have armies. If those UN armies are ever used on American soil to 'protect us' from civil unrest, it will likely be because our own army might revolt from doing some things the Constitution says shouldn't be done. Already foreign troops are increasingly trained on American soil and run through terrorism drills. Obama's opening up the borders with Mexico as part of the transition from sovereign America to the North American Union and from the dollar to the Amero. They already have "residential centers" with children's swing sets and double barbed wire fences. Not a pretty sight in America”
Now let’s refer to the truth.
The United Nations is not a “foreign state” except in the minds of a small minority.
The UN does not have an army. Member countries voluntarily provide all UN forces to achieve a specific resolution.
Images of UN forces on US soil “protecting us” are pure fantasy springing from paranoia and individual insecurities. Evidence supporting such predictions does not exit. Even the “likely” cause is fabricated about some unnamed “things” that should not be done.
Foreign troops have been trained on US soil since this nation was born. While stationed at Fort Knox fifty years ago, I studied with foreign military personnel during MOS training.
Legally crossing the border with Mexico requires numerous documents, ID, and authorization. See {1} below.
Many of the FEMA “residential centers” have been debunked by honest and independent investigation. {2} If you know of a new one, I hope you will share it with us so we can look into your claim.
Nearly every claim in the paragraph I quoted above has been fabricated and can not be confirmed by any legitimate authority. I know of no better way to undermine the success and strength of the United States then by trying to convince Americans their government intends to “enslave” them.
And the speculation goes on. “And yet when the New World Order accomplishes their goals, the UN will be the only state. There won't be an America any more. And you won't need a passport, because all of Earth will be one big 'happy' (enslaved) family.” I must repeat that your opinions are based on unsupported conjecture but they are yours and you are welcome to them. However, in the world in which the rest of us live, most people realize that the Constitution of the United States in its present form did not exist 250 years ago and it is highly probable that will also be the case 250 years from now.
Have a good night, Lonestar, and by all means challenge people and sources that abuse semantics. People who must distort the language and redefine terms in order to support their claims are capable of making any lie seem like the truth.
{1} http://www.focusonmexico.com/Crossing-the-Border.html
{2} http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … ws/4312850How refreshing, Lonestar, to see you introduce Ron Paul to this forum thread.
In this case I agree with you that Ron Paul “has been saying some pretty amazing things for the last 30 years and backing them up with actions.”
For example, on June 4, 2004, when Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Ron Paul cast the ONLY dissenting vote. In a statement from the floor of the House, he said, “The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.” {1}
Then, earlier this year, in an interview with Candy Crowley CNN's State of the Union, Dr. Paul bashed the 1964 Civil Rights Act again saying it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices." {2}
It is nice to know you advocate for a man whose vision for America includes a "free society" which includes businesses with separate lunch counters and water fountains. You must be in favor of living in a country with different rules for different races.
Oh, let’s not overlook the infamous Ron Paul Newsletters.
How about separate lunch counters for balding men? Would that mean you and I would be forced to eat together too?
{1} http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
{2} http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-tel … d-privacy/)
Hello again. Thanks for a prompt reply, Lonestar. Your extraordinary remarks always stimulate discusson.
The subject is not semantics. The subject is blatantly corrupting definitions. Again you used the word semantics only this time incorrectly. The 2+2 story is irrelevant. I am not talking about mathematical notation or rules, I talking about the meanings, i.e. definitions, of words in the English language. Syntax deals with “rules”; semantics is the study of meanings! Semantics are not just “good”; they are essential for meaningful and accurate communications. Unbelievable that you would say, “if you depend only upon semantics you potentially miss out.” Semantics do not cause readers to miss out; it causes them to tune in. Although I must admit it is a good strategy to deflect attention away from the fact that you created personal definitions to support an erroneous conclusion. And still, not one legal authority is offered to support your trumped up definition of a foreign state.
How prophetic of you to say, “If America ends up in a decade to be gone, dissolved and replaced by the UN, then whoever assisted in that dissolution is an enemy of America.” It may occur to you eventually, Lonestar, that you have enlisted in an organized and well-funded brigade of conspiracy enthusiasts who are trying to undermine the success and strength of this nation by convincing other Americans their government intends to “enslave” them. Now, I would consider that giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our country. Furthermore, it takes huge egos and small minds to assume you and your cohorts are smarter than are others Americans. One day it might also occur to you that those who reject your unsupported, irrational theories already know something you have yet to learn.
You are not promoting patriotism when you say, “If you love America and what it used to stand for, then you might want to protect the ideals and ideas upon which it was founded. Obama is not doing that.” Actually, many Americans love this country, what it stands for, and what it has accomplished. The ideas and ideals of The United States were built on a Constitution that has been revised 27 times. Among these amendments you find the guarantee of a citizen’s right to vote, the elimination of slavery, the establishment of women’s right to vote, prohibition and its repeal, and a ban on poll taxes. To assert the Constitution is now perfect if ludicrous. True patriots encourage continuing improvements with the passage of time.
I admire your attempt to be fair minding by saying, “It's a matter of choice and awareness. If you believe the Corporate Party media kool-aid, then you have one reality. If you believe the hardened conspiracy theorists, then you have another reality. Likely the truth is somewhere between the two.” However, terms like “corporate party” and “media Kool-Aid” are part of a lexicon of politically charged words that disconnect you from the very people you hope to reach.
Stay well, Lonestar, and keep searching and questioning. The truth is out there but it is not always easy to find.
- HowardBThinameposted 12 years ago
0 The latter, of course
Here's Judge Napolitano on Obama's treason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edij2CTWrx4
Related Discussions
- 89
National Defense Authorization Act and "Battlefield USA"
On November 30, the US Senate rejected the "Udall Amendment," which would have stripped from the National Defense Authorization bill the provisions identifying the US as a battlefield in the war on terror and enabling the military to detain American citizens in the US indefinitely without...
- 45
Congress and Prez attack Americans' right to a trial.
Congress and the President still intend to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional right to a trial by jury."National Defense Authorization Act: House And Senate Negotiators Agree On Bill Hoping To Avoid Obama Veto The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens...
- 92
Is Ron Paul in alliance with Mitt Romney?
Over the last couple of days a lot of media attention has gone towards a conspiracy theory involving Ron Paul and Mitt Romney banding together. They seem to be pushing it pretty hard which in my mind means that they are trying to paint Ron Paul as a sell-out. What are your thoughts?
- 20
Nullify the NDAA: Virginia House Bill 1160.
Introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates is House Bill 1160 (HB1160) which “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United...
- 19
If you could change one law in your country what would it be?
If you could change one law in your country what would it be?
- 29
Just how far will a political party go to be or remain in power?
We have two major political parties that would seem to stop at nothing to get or keep power. This was highlighted to me when my son and I went to see The Campaign. Who do you feel is the least scrupulous? Please try and be non-partisan here(joke of the day).